TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is alleged nor in the orders impugned in the petition any finding is recorded to the effect that the petitioner, a nominee director had aided or abeted in contravening the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any such finding recorded, imposition of penalty on the petitioner nominee director on the ground that the petitioner has violated Section 11(2) of the 1992 Act cannot be sustained - Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rule 13 and 14(1) and (2) of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules, 1993 and, hence, liable for penalty is the question raised in this writ petition. 2. While admitting the Writ Petition on 10th August 2007, this Court specifically recorded that in spite of the availability of the alternate remedy of appeal, this is a fit case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6th January 2007 and 22nd January 2007, fiscal penalty of Rs.12,92,588/and Rs.66,85,000/was levied upon the company and its directors. The fiscal penalty has been imposed on the ground that the company and its directors have contravened the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Rule 13 and 14(1) and (2) of the Foreign Trade Regulation Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner, a nominee director had aided or abeted in contravening the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any such finding recorded, imposition of penalty on the petitioner nominee director on the ground that the petitioner has violated Section 11(2) of the 1992 Act cannot be sustained. 7. Similarly, the impugned orders do not even remotely suggest as to how the petitioner has viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
