|
Advanced Search Options
FEMA - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 170 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (11) TMI 513 - ATFEMA
Restrictions on dealing in foreign exchange - diversion of exported goods, non-realisation of export proceeds, non-clearance of imported bills and write off/ set off - HELD THAT:- Trend Setters Group of Companies had failed to submit Bill of Entry as evidence for actual import of the goods. Trend Setters Group of Companies did not realised the substantial portion of export proceeds and it is also established that except filing a Suit before a Sub-Court in Ernakulam, Kerala and writing to the RBI for write off/ set off, no other steps have been taken. In other words, no sufficient and visible efforts have been by/ on behalf of the Trend Setters Group of Companies to realise the export proceeds. Who was/were the person/persons responsible for the diversion of export goods / non-realisation of export proceeds and remittances of payment towar....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 544 - ATFEMA
Contravention of FEMA - Investment in three step-down subsidiaries through Wholly Owned Subsidiary (WOS) without the permission of the RBI - Penalty imposed - HELD THAT:- As provided that if any person contravened any provision of this act or contravened any rules, regulation, notification, direction or order issued in exercise of the powers under this Act be liable to penalty upto thrice the sum involved in such contravention where such amount is quantifiable. In the present case the sum involved are quantifiable. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellants submitted, on query by the Bench, submitted that more than six crores of INR were invested in the step-down subsidiaries. If it is so the imposition of ₹ 70 lakhs on the appellant company and ₹ 20 lakhs on the Managing Director is not disproportion....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1136 - ATFEMA
Condonation of delay in filing applications for substitution of Legal Heirs (LRs) of the deceased appellant - common application for substitutions of LRs has been filed on 01.11.2018 i.e. around 370 days from the date of death of the deceased appellant - HELD THAT:- There is a huge delay of 370 days in filing the application. It is not the case of the proposed appellants that they are not aware of the pendency of the appeals before Appellate Tribunal, it is also not the case that the proposed LRs were not running the Company or that the Company was closed after the sad demise of deceased appellant for one year. In the present case, there is not only a huge delay but also there is no sufficient explanation as to why there is a delay of 370 days in filing the application. In the present case, there is not only a huge delay but also there is....... + More
- 2019 (10) TMI 1210 - ATFEMA
Offence under FERA - fraud on the banking system - mens rea is an essential ingredient as the FERA proceedings - As alleged officers responsible for conduct of the company were ‘negligent' - non specified SCN - HELD THAT:- Show Cause Notice must necessarily establish that the concerned officer was incharge of, and responsible for conduct of the company and further, spell out the offence committed by such officer. Only certain junior officers have been namedin the SCNs who can under no circumstances be said to be incharge and responsible for the bank or for conduct of its business. Further, onus to prove that a person was responsible for conduct of business of company is on the Department, which it has failed to discharge. In the impugned Orders Mr. Rajgopalan Ramkumar, Mr. Sunil G. Sawant, Mr. R.B. Dhage, Mr. Allwyn Roche, Mr. P....... + More
- 2019 (10) TMI 174 - ATFEMA
Canara Bank abetted in the illegal and unauthorized dealing of foreign exchange - penalties against the appellants for the contravention of Sections 6(4), 6(5) r/w Sections 49, 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(e) along with Para 10.3 (ii) - HELD THAT:- It is stated that from a conjoint reading of the facts and the definitions that there was neither any commission nor any omission on the part of the Appellant. Cheques issued by BFEA on an account maintained with Canara Bank were presented in the normal course of clearing and these cheques were honoured by Canara Bank. Canara Bank did not know at that point of time that the proceeds of those cheques would be remitted abroad after being credited to a convertible rupee account maintained at the ANZ Grindlays Bank. In any event the Canara Bank had nothing whatsoever to do with the crediting of money to ....... + More
- 2019 (10) TMI 173 - ATFEMA
Sum acquired/possessed/held/owned outside India with LGT Bank without any General or Special permission of RBI - contravention alleged by invoking presumption under section 39 of FEMA, 99 - presumption of documents. - Penalty enhanced - Power of special director in the absence of appeal from Revenue side - HELD THAT:- It is stated on behalf of appellants that before the Special Director, the Appellants reiterated their contentions, in addition to submitting that the conclusion of guilt against the appellant is based on no material and that the order passed is perfunctory without application of mind and even contrary to show cause notice where the theory of 1/4th of amount was not even alleged, but the Special Director affirmed the order of the Adjudication Authority on his self-innovated and imaginary reasoning, neither based on any evide....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 940 - ATFEMA
Contravention of Regulation 7 of Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable property in India) Regulations, 2000 - Confiscation of 8 flats and five car parking - penalty under section 13(2) of the FEMA Act - HELD THAT:- National of the countries specified under Regulation 7 of the Regulations can acquire or transfer immovable properties in India, provided that such a person obtains the requisite permission from the Reserve Bank of India. If the national so fails to apply for such a permission, the Reserve Bank of India has the power to accord an ex post facto permission with regards to the said transaction. The transaction in question is not a commercial transaction; as a matter of fact the Appellant still resides in the Flats. The Flats were purchased by Indian Rupees, out of monies earned in India on which Income....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 666 - ATFEMA
Purchase of property in India - Individual arrived in India on Business Visa - “Person resident in India” as contemplated under Section 2(v) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - THAT:- Appellants residing in India for more than 182 days in the previous financial year at the time of setting up of business and purchase of property in India. Thus, they satisfied the definition of the term “Person resident in India” as contemplated under Section 2(v) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and therefore there was no impediment to purchase and hold property in India nor did they require any permission from the Reserve Bank of India to purchase immovable property or to set up any business in India. The property was purchased on 01.09.2009 more than a year after they entered India under a valid Visa. It is ....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 161 - ATFEMA
Guilty of contravention of the provisions of Section 26(7)(i)(ii) of FERA 1973 - Penalty imposed on directors - dealing between a FERA Company and ‘a Person resident in India’ (which could only be an individual) - arrangement between two bodies corporate - whether amount given by LIL to HLL can neither be treated as a ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’? - HELD THAT:- Scope of “person resident in India”, it cannot be held that the amount given by LIL to HLL in the aforesaid circumstances was not ‘bonafide’ and that the Company did not act under an ‘honest and genuine belief’ that it was permissible to do so. Nor can it be said that the company ‘acted deliberately in defiance of law’ or were ‘guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest’ or ‘acted in consc....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 683 - ATFEMA
Hawala transactions - Contravention of provisions of Section 3(b) and Section 3(c) of FEMA, 1999 - allegation based on statement of various persons - submission of the appellant was that the appellant has been wrongly implicated in the case and nothing was seized or recovered from his possession - HELD THAT:- The impugned order has alleged that he received money (Indian currencies) from some other people some of whose name are Poonam, Getha, Raja Ram, Devidoss, Jaloor etc. who in turn has arranged this money from people from abroad. Thus, it appears that the impugned order has not established the appellant receiving the money directly from abroad. Moreover, there is no restriction on circulation of Indian money within the country, at least under FEMA - the department has not investigated those people who are Indians and who have delivered....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 682 - ATFEMA
Acquiring and transferring foreign exchange equivalent to ₹ 208 crores without the prior general or special permission of the RBI - Section 8(1) of FERA, 1973 - allegation is made that M/s. THL have not provided any documents to prove the source of funds which they have invested/remitted to M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited etc. in India and because some of the Directors are common to both the companies, it has been held that this money has actually been funded by M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited to M/s. THL and then back to M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited. HELD THAT:- There is no prima facie evidence, documentary or otherwise on which the adjudicating authority has relied upon to conclusively prove the above charges. Whether there is a round tripping of funds, the interests of the common Directors in each of....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 681 - ATFEMA
Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed on time limitation as well as for non-compliance with the pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- That Delhi High Court’s order, clearly mentions only two appeals i.e. 475 and 543 of 2004 of having being remanded to the AT. There is no such order with regard to the other two appeals i.e. 473 and 488 of 2003 and hence it was legally required for the appellants to have filed, if they so desired, a proper restoration of appeal applications with valid grounds and reasons. As discussed above, they have failed to do so either in their applications or during the hearing - the restoration of appeals applications in appeal No. 473 & 488 of 2003 is dismissed as rejected as is without any grounds and substance. Other two appeals i.e. 475 & 543 of 2004 which has been remanded by the Hon’ble Delhi Hig....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 266 - ATFEMA
Imposition of penalty by Special Director - contravention of Sections 8(1) & 9(1)(a) of FERA, 1973 and Sections 9(1)(f)(i), 8(1) & 9(1)(a) of FERA, 1973 - unlawful detention - initiation of adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 51 FERA, 1973. HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority has not been taken into account in the Impugned Order that prior to the Notification dated 31.07.1995, the position was that foreign currency could be deposited in NRE Accounts by power of attorney holders of NRIs. That being the case the necessary ingredients to make out the violations under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(f) of FERA are not made out - It is rightly stated that in the Impugned Order proceeds on the erroneous premise that the foreign exchange deposited in the NRE Accounts of Mr. V.D. Jaiswal were deposited by the Appella....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 265 - ATFEMA
Maintainability of the appeal - Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - appeals were fixed for orders when there is a difference of opinion - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the impugned orders are interlocutory orders and these orders are passed during the course of inquiry proceedings as provided under the Act and Rules thereto. The object of Section 19 (1) is to give a right to appeal to a party aggrieved by an order which affects the party’s right or liability. If the present type of orders are allowed to be agitated than there will be no end to litigation and the very purpose of the relevant provisions and intention of the legislature would be defeated. The scope of the words “an order” of Adjudicating Authority is not as wide as “any order” or “every decision or order”....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 213 - ATFEMA
Imposition of penalty by Special Director - contravention of Sections 6(4), 6(5), 49, 73(3) of FERA, 1973 r/w NRE Account Rules 1970 - initiation of adjudication proceedings as contemplated under Section 51 FERA, 1973 within 30 days - HELD THAT:- In the Impugned Order the factum of prior to the Notification dated 31.07.1995, the position was that foreign currency could be deposited in NRE Accounts by power of attorney holders of NRIs. The same was requisite requirement to make out the violations under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(f) of FERA are not made out - In the Impugned Order, the Adjudicating Authority has not taken into account the fact that the Adjudicating Authority has in 52 cases against the Appellant, quashed penalty imposed against him and the same have till date not been challenged by the Respondent before the Appellate a....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 137 - ATFEMA
Non-realisation of exports proceeds - guilty of contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA, 1973 - It was the case of the respondent that the appellants have failed to take reasonable steps to realize the export proceeds the RBI had not granted any permission to the appellants for extension of time or for writing off the same - HELD THAT:- It is noticed by the Hon’ble High Court in para-5 of the order that on perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has not considered the Bank Certificates furnished by the petitioner, which prime facie suggest that the export proceeds have been realized by the appellants. Since the Tribunal has not considered the said Bank Certificates, in our opinion, it is just and proper to set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal and direc....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 136 - ATFEMA
Jurisdiction - power of Single Member Bench to decide appeals under the provisions of FERA and FEMA - appellants’ contention is that Section 52 of the FERA does not allow any Single Member to hear and decide the appeals where the order imposing a penalty exceeds ₹ 2,50,000 was a provision under the FERA, 1973 - HELD THAT:- As per Section 12 (6A) of SAFEMA, the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal may constitute a Bench with one or two Members and a Bench so constituted may exercise and discharge the powers and functions of the Appellate Tribunal. Even the erstwhile Section 20 of FEMA (rescinded vide Finance Act 2017) had provisions to constitute Bench with one or more Members - while the Appellate Board of FERA has been dissolved with the coming into effect of FEMA on 01.06.2000, the Appellate Tribunal set up under SAFEMA will b....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 135 - ATFEMA
Hawala transactions - Receiving payments under the instructions of persons resident outside India - contravention of Section 3(c) of FEMA, 1999 - distribution of payments under the instructions of persons resident outside India - contravention of Section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999 - imposition of penalties - relaibility on retracted statements - opportunity of cross-examination - principles of natural justice. HELD THAT:- The appellants’ contention that they had retracted the statement is a little difficult to accept. The retraction was purportedly done by sending a letter to the Directorate of Enforcement on 15.09.2011 by Shri Shamsher Singh and 04.08.2011by Shri Dimple Thakur. In the case of Shamsher Singh it was done after 43 days from his first statement and after recording eight statements on different dates. Moreover, the appellant ha....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 134 - ATFEMA
Receipt of payments under the instructions of a person resident outside India - delay in issuance of SCN - Validity of confession - HELD THAT:- The statement recorded from the appellant does not contain any admission/confession and instead contains clear denial of any involvement in the case. The issuance of the show cause notice and the findings of guilt solely basing on the discrepancy in the travel details of the appellant is unsustainable. The appellant was in India as per pass-port details produced by the respondent. The appellant has also failed to produce his pass-port when his counsel was asked who only stated now that the same is not traceable. Therefore, presumption is that he may be the same person as alleged by the respondent - It is stated that he is a poor old man and suffering from Parkinson Diseases and showing symptoms of....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 133 - ATFEMA
FDI - Automatic route or not - Inward remittances made into India in the year 2008, through normal banking channels (with relevant foreign inward remittance certificates) - bidding of IPL - It is case of appellants that the appellants’ bid in respect of the ‘Rajasthan Royals’ franchise as legitimate and successful, after due scrutiny of all the information and proposed investment structure as furnished along with the bid - contravention of the provisions of Section 3(b), Section 6(2), 6(3)b & Section 42(1) of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulation 5(1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000, Paragraph 8 of schedule of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulation, 2000, Regulation 5 of....... + More
........
|
