Home Case Index All Cases FEMA 2019 2019 2019 (1) FEMA - 2019 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

FEMA - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 4 of 4 Records

• 2019 (1) TMI 1502 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal before Special Director (Appeals) - proper appellate authority for deciding the appeals filed after repeal of FERA on 01.06.2000 against the order passed under Section 51 of FERA - contravention of Sections 9 (1) (a), 9(1)(c) and Section 16(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - imports and exports of certain commodities made with two foreign parties, viz., M/s Fingrain, S.A., Geneva and M/s Continental Grain Export Corporation, New York - whether appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement (Adjudicating Officer) under Section 51 of FERA read with FEMA would lie only to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 19 of FEMA but not before the Special Director (Appeals) under Section 17 of FERA?

  Held that:- Any appeal filed after 01.06.2000 against the order of the Adjudicating Officer passed under Section 51 of FERA in the proceedings initiated under FERA would lie before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 19 of FEMA.

  The legislature did not intend to make a distinction between the two appeals for their disposal by two different appellate authorities under FEMA only because one appeal was filed prior to 01.06.2000, therefore, it will lie before the Appellate Tribunal whereas the other appeal which was filed after 01.06.2000 though against the similar order, it will lie before the Special Director (Appeals). In our view, there does not appear to be any justifiable reason to make such distinction for filing of appeals filed against the similar order passed under FERA before two different appellate authorities under FEMA - this intention of the legislature is strengthened when we read Section 49 (5)(b) of FEMA and Section 81(c) of FERA.

  So far as Section 49(5)(b) of FEMA is concerned, it specifically provides that the appeals filed under Section 52 (2) of FERA against the order passed under Section 51 of FERA will be decided by the Appellate Tribunal under FEMA - So far as Section 81(c) of FERA, 1973 is concerned, it deals with Repeal and Saving of FERA, 1947. Clause (c) of Section 81 specifically provides that all the appeals filed under Section 23 of FERA, 1947, whether pending on the date of Repeal or/and those filed after the repeal of FERA, 1947, shall be disposed of by the Appellate Board constituted under FERA, 1973.

  Since Section 49(5)(b) of FEMA is not identically worded on the pattern of Section 81(c) of FERA, that itself would justify that the legislature intended to provide two appellate authorities in FEMA for filing two types of appeals arising out of a similar order - it is not possible to accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondents(assessees) that by interpretative process this Court can uphold creation of another appellate authority for the disposal of the appeals filed against the order passed under Section 51 of FERA after 01.06.2000 which do not fall under Section 49 (5)(2) of FEMA.

  There is no reason as to why the same legislative intent while interpreting the provisions of FERA, 1973 and FEMA, 1999 is applied for deciding the identical question now arising in the case.

  The appellate forum for deciding the appeals arising out of the order passed under Section 51 of FERA whether filed prior to 01.06.2000 or filed after 01.06.2000 must be the same, i.e., Appellate Tribunal under FEMA - the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 against the order dated 05.12.2003 passed by Deputy Director of enforcement under Section 51 of FERA will lie and was, therefore, maintainable only before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 19 of FEMA - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2019 (1) TMI 980 - ATFEMA
  

  Stay of penalty imposed - Contravention and allegations against the appellant u/s 6(3)(d) of FEMA - penalty imposed - delay in settlement of import dues - Held that:- The Appellants have prima facie demonstrated that there have been no violations of the provisions of FEMA, the Rules, Regulations and the Master Circular on Imports. Without prejudice to any of the aforesaid, and assuming without admitting that there was a violation, even then the RBI regularized the same by granting the permissions to settle the dues specifically from “FEMA Angle”. The Appellant has also able demonstrated the factual conditions which led to the delay in settlement of import dues. The RBI letter expressly states that the permission was issued from foreign exchange angle under FEMA. The limitation of the permission was only in respect of any other applicable laws other than FEMA. The Respondent is admittedly not seeking to impose penalty for alleged violation of any other law. In view of the aforesaid, the contentions of the Respondent especially at Para 16 are unsustainable.

  In this regard, the submissions of the Appellants in their Appeals, Stay Applications and the common Synopsis are reiterated.

  Prima facie it is of the view that the respondent has no jurisdiction to reinterpret the terms of the agreement between Google Ireland and Google India.

  Undue hardship that will be caused to the Appellants if they are made to make a deposit of any part of their respective penalty which is without basis in law and in any event highly disproportionate to the bona fide actions of the Appellants.

  In the present case, the RBI has specifically allowed the settlement of dues from FEMA angle

  In the light of the prima facie has been made by the appellant and the appellant will suffer hardship if the appellant is asked to deposit the penalty amount. After having through the facts and material placed on record, I am of the opinion that the chances of success of appeal are more than the failure of appeal. Thus, the prayer is allowed. M.P is disposed of. There shall be a stay of operation of the impugned order till the final decision of appeals.

  ---

• 2019 (1) TMI 190 - ATFEMA
  

  Approval of RBI for transfer of technology in excess of USD 1,00,000 - rectification of the advance payment - invocation of provisions of FERA - Held that:- The whole case hinges on the RBI’s approval for the excess amount not being available. From the RBI’s letter dated 18.11.2002, it is apparent that the RBI was seized of the matter and had not rejected their case. It would be in the fitness of things to have consulted the RBI before the impugned order was passed more so because the genesis of the case was an information received from the RBI.

  The matter is remanded back to the original authority to get the necessary response/reply from the RBI and pass a fresh speaking order after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard.

  ---

• 2019 (1) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty under FEMA - Tribunal jurisdiction allowing waiver of deposit of penalty - Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 12,00,000/-, which would amount to 25% out of the total amount ordered by the adjudicating authority by way of penalty - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the direction already given in this appeal, dated 05.09.2018, would safeguard the interest of the Department, since the appeal itself has been directed to be listed by the Appellate Tribunal on 27.02.2019.

  Thus the appeal stands allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the effect that the appellant shall pay a sum of ₹ 5,00,000/-, which the appellant has already paid. Consequently, the remaining amount of penalty, levied on the appellant, shall remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.

  ---

1