2017 (5) TMI 852 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE
Jaipur IPL Cricket (P.) Ltd. Versus Special Director, Mumbai
Violation of Section 3 of FEMA, 1999 - Held that - In the present case, the remitter and investor are different and are not in accordance with the Regulations made by the Reserve Bank of India under the Act. The remittance 1 and remittance 2 were made by the person other than the investor and are in direct contravention of Regulation 5 of FEMA (Permissible Capital Account Transactions) Regulations, 2000. - From the perusal of record, it is clear ....... + More
2016 (9) TMI 352 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE Tribunal
Prakash Bafna Versus Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Proceedings leveled against co-noticee - appellant was resident outside India - Held that - Nothing incriminating from the raid carried out at the residential and business premises of the appellant could be found. There is no documentary evidence in support of the allegations of the respondent. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in any act of alleged purchase and sale of foreign currency. For the alleged credit....... + More
2016 (2) TMI 480 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
M.L. Gupta Versus Special Director of Enforcement
Levy of penalty for Non realization of export proceeds (foreign exchange) within six months of the date of shipment or within the extended period - Held that - Considering the submission that almost entire sale proceeds have been realized and loss to the exchequer has subsequently been made good therefore, taking a holistic view, we are of the opinion that it will be just and fair in the circumstances that the penalties imposed which are almost h....... + More
2016 (1) TMI 183 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Sun Star Future Wood Ltd. Versus Special Director of Enforcement
Importers who had acquired foreign exchange from their authorized dealers for the purpose of imports of specified goods but had failed to submit the Exchange Control copy of Bill of Entry in respect of the relevant imports to their authorized dealers - It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that an amount of ₹ 410,550 US was remitted by IDBI by opening L/C (Letter of Credit). The goods were shipped by the foreign seller and arrive....... + More
2015 (8) TMI 1381 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Rare Creations Ltd. Versus Enforcement Directorate
Contravention of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA, 1973 r/w notifications of Central Government dated 1-1-1974 - Held that - Adjudicating Authority was at liberty to appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with law according to its wisdom independently. However, as a principle of law it cannot be said that judgments in all criminal appeals will ipso facto result in quashing the adjudication proceedings under FERA alike disciplinary procee....... + More
2015 (3) TMI 1165 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Connor Information Techno. Ltd. Versus Spl. Dir. of Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi
Application for amendment in the memo of appeal - Held that - The amendment application appears to have been made bonafidely and through it the appellant wants to bring on record the subsequent developments. Through the proposed amendment, no new cause has been set up by the appellant and is in continuation of the facts which were placed earlier. The subsequent developments are being placed before the Tribunal, so that they may be duly considered....... + More
2015 (2) TMI 460 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
TRIVENI CARPETS INDUSTRIES Versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Imposition of penalty jointly and severally - failure to take reasonable steps for repatriation of export proceeds of US 23580.02 in respect of goods exported under 3 GRIs - Held that - While going through the order of penalty, I have noted that there is hardly any discussion on the role of the partners that led to non-realisation of the export proceeds of the 3 GRs and the ld. adjudicating officer has not arrived at any finding to show that the ....... + More
2015 (2) TMI 415 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
SAMPATRAJ R. SETH Versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and Section 64(2) r/w Section 9(1)(d) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Imposition of personal penalty - violation under Section 51 of FERA, 1973 - whether the adjudicating authority has given the appellant an opportunity of cross-examining the mahazar witnesses and the person who recorded the voluntary statement of the appellant - Held that - Sh. Kiran S. Javali, Counsel for th....... + More
2014 (12) TMI 1225 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Space Age Polymers P. Ltd. Versus Addl. Dir., Enforcement Directorate
Waiver of penalty - Held that - The fact that the company has almost closed business and is incurring losses continuously has not been disputed by the respondent. Prima facie the audit reports are in conformity with the arguments advanced that the company is incurring financial losses regularly. Considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above and in view of the case laws Special Director of Enforcement v. Anil Aggarwal and Anr. 2009 (3....... + More
2014 (12) TMI 1190 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Jaipur IPL Cricket P. Ltd. Versus Sl. Dir. of Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai
Waiver of pre-deposit - Proceedings under FEMA - Difference of opinion between the members of the tribunal - Scope of the reference made in case of difference of opinion of two Hon ble members under Section 31 of FEMA, 1999 - Held that - It is not open for the Chairperson/third member to re-write the judgment/order, according to his understanding. He can not disagree with the findings of both the Hon ble Members but has to agree with one of the f....... + More
2014 (10) TMI 885 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
P.K. Bagaria Versus Special Dir., Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi
Condonation of delay - Held that - From the perusal of the Impugned Orders that proceedings were held ex parte. The show cause notices were served by affixation. The cause for delay in instituting the appeal after a gap of more than seven years appears to us to be sufficient and convincing. There is no proof on record that the show cause notices or the Adjudication Orders were duly served upon the applicants/appellants. The delay condonation appl....... + More
2014 (8) TMI 1017 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Versus Enforcement Directorate
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - delay of 8 years after ex-parte order - Section 52 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Held that - proceedings were held ex parte. The show cause notice was served by affixation. There appears to be discrepancies in the amount as shown in the original invoice which is ₹ 4,20,750/- and the amount shown in entry No.4 of annexur....... + More
2012 (4) TMI 561 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
DUNGARMAL S. DOSHI Versus SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
... ...
... ... to review its own order, which has been passed on merits. As a result, the petition is not maintainable neither in facts or in law. In the above circumstances, the prayer for review the order, dated 21-2-2011 is rejected by dismissing the petition.
2012 (2) TMI 471 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
RUPANI EXPORTS Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
... ...
... ... ctive penalty amount within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure of appellants in making the payment as aforesaid, the Enforcement Directorate will be entitled to realise the amount of penalty in accordance with law.
2011 (3) TMI 1493 - THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
KN. WASAN Versus DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
... ...
... ... ue I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order passed against M/s. Ecco Wasan Shoes (P) Ltd. and Jatinder Wasan by allowing Appeal No. 254/91 and 261/91. In result, Appeal No. 253/91 stands as abated and Appeal Nos. 254/91 and 261/91 stand allowed.
2011 (2) TMI 1302 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
PRABODH G. MEHTA Versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
Violation of the provisions of Section 9(l)(f)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Imposition of penalty - Delivery of foreign currency to NRI - Held that - appellants have not disclosed their relationship with the person who donated each of them 25,000/- US Dollars. It is not probable that the total stranger will donate such a huge amount to the appellants. Even at the time of hearing of this review application a similar question was a....... + More
2011 (2) TMI 1300 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
HARSHAD S. SANGHRAIKA Versus SPECIAL DIR. OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Violation of the provisions of Section 9(1)(c) - Imposition of Penalty - Held that - retracted statement cannot be made the sole basis of imposing penalty in the absence of any other independent corroborative evidence. Apart from that, making the admission of liability to third person is not an acknowledgement of debt, the acknowledgement should be in favour of the person who has a right to recover it - admission made by the appellant to the Dire....... + More
2011 (2) TMI 1298 - THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
VINTEX ENGG. EXPORTS P. LTD. Versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
... ...
... ... is appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order is set aside. The appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the penalty as a pre-deposit for hearing the appeal, the same refunded to the appellant within 3 months from the date of service of order.
2011 (2) TMI 1297 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
SK. MITTAL Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
... ...
... ... e available on the record of that case. 7. emsp In such circumstances the impugned order which is based on evidence which is not the part of the record cannot be sustained in the eyes of this appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
2011 (1) TMI 1241 - THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI
IONIDEA ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. Versus DIR., ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Transfer of share in favour of NRI - Permission for such transfer was not obtained from RBI - Compounding of offence by RBI - Imposition of penalty - Held that - offence has taken place when FERA was in force as it is clearly reflected by the letter of RBI who refused to entertain the application for compounding stating that the violation is under FERA and the provision of compounding was not there under the said Act. The compounding is permissib....... + More
