2018 (7) TMI 1224
Allegation against the appellant Jaswinder Singh as contravened Sections 9 (1) (d) of FERA - payments of ₹ 2.85 Crore to persons in India on behalf of persons residing outside India - Held that - In any event, the case of the department is improbable on the face of it as the allegation of the department that the appellant indulged in hawala business is falsified from the fact that the said diary allegedly contains the details of the payment....... + More
2018 (6) TMI 1491
Offence under FEMA - Person deemed to be guilty of contravention alleged against AEL. - Sh. Rajesh S. Adani resposibility for the conduct of business of AEL - Held that - Letters and conduct goes to show that Sh. Rajesh S. Adani is covered u/s 42 of FEMA, 1999 being responsible for day to day affairs business activities of AEL as Managing Director. All the aforesaid actions of Sh. Rajesh S. Adani justified the findings in the impugned order there....... + More
2018 (6) TMI 677
Contravention of the RBI instructions - remittance for the one share of Mr. Leonid Beyzer had not come in as a foreign direct investment nor had it been made as a debit from his NRE/FCNR account maintained with an authorised dealer/authorised bank - Held that - The appellants are not disputing the charge but have stated that Mr. Leonid Beyzer had transferred the above remittances from his personal account to the account of the company i.e. M/s. T....... + More
2018 (5) TMI 1531
Violation of Section 3(a), FEMA - Penalty - Burden of Proof - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - amount received in foreign currency from unknown persons and same was spent when in India - Held that - It is settled legal principle that onus of proof, in both civil and criminal law, is on the person who wishes to prove a particular fact - There is no statutory provision in FEMA imposing reverse evidentiary burden upon an accused person, as....... + More
2018 (5) TMI 1530
Identity of the offender - appeal filed mainly on the ground that ED had booked a case against them on a wrong presumption and was a case of mistaken identity - Held that - it is clear that ED has not been able to prove that the appellant and Shri Farooque Memon, who seems to be the offender, are one and the same person. This is strengthened by the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad in the bail application. - All e....... + More
2018 (5) TMI 730
Proof of goods purchased by remitting the foreign exchange brought into India - offence under FEMA - Held that - The two consignments have been auctioned by the Customs/CWC as the appellant failed to clear the goods within the bond period and the authorities have recovered the customs duty and other charges payable on the two consignments. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has failed to prove that the goods purchased by....... + More
2018 (5) TMI 729
Offence under FERA - Whether appellant had any knowledge or role in distribution of foreign exchange? - Held that - There is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice or the Adjudicating Order that Appellant either made any payment of any such foreign exchange or was aware about any such payment. In any case, a person who had done the whole transaction has been let off and the same Adjudicating Order against him has been quashed, the order against t....... + More
2018 (4) TMI 1342
Seizure of bank account due of the suspicion that foreign exchange was suspected to be held outside India in contravention of Section 4 of the FEMA, 1999 - Liberalise Remittance Scheme (LRS Scheme) - Exercise of powers conferred upon him in terms of the provisions of Section 37A(1) of FEMA, 1999 - Held that - The main error in the impugned order is that RBI scheme has not been discussed at all. The impugned order is totally silent about the schem....... + More
2018 (4) TMI 681
Violation of FERA - lending against the deposit without taking any primary security - Held that - Bank had lent money against the security of deposits in the NRNR accounts. There was no bar in such type of lending as is apparent from the RBI s Notification. The bank was required to comply with the condition attached to such lending as prescribed by the RBI under the FERA/FEMA. One such condition was that the bank could grant loan facilities to re....... + More
2018 (4) TMI 232
Stay petition - Held that - This is is an arguable case on merits and hence cannot also be stated to be prima facie in their favour. They are accordingly required to pre-deposit the penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs within a period of four weeks from today failing which the appeal shall be disposed off as per the provisions of FEMA........ + More
2018 (3) TMI 1291
Appeal for non-compliance of pre-deposit of penalty - Held that - All the information provided proves that the conduct of the appellant/his counsel has not been very honest and they have tried to misguide the tribunal. That they have failed to file a review petition within a reasonable time is apparent from above, and are now coming up with some ground or the other. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel of the appellant during hearing....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1250
Maintainability of Appeal under Section 19 of FEMA Act - Held that - Provisos to Section 19(1) of the Act, an appeal can be maintained/heard only when the issue of pre-deposit of penalty has been examined/addressed. - In the instant case, the conditions for filing Appeal has not been satisfied as no penalty has been imposed in the absence of an order . As the provisions laid down in Section 19(1) of the Act have not been fulfilled, the appeal fil....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1136
Calling of witness Mr. Chokshi whose cross examination was already conducted on 20/09/2017 was rejected - Held that - It is the interest of justice, equity and fairplay, let Mt. Chokshi be further cross-examined on this aspect. The argument of the respondent has no forced that the appellant has covered entire case on 20.09.2017 if when the question of 41-45 were put to Mr. Chokshi. - Thus, the findings given in the impugned orders are contrary to....... + More
2018 (3) TMI 1066
Application of FEMA for a contravention in the FERA issue - Held that - The present appeal instead of being preferred before the Special Director (Appeals) under Section 17 of FEMA has being filed this Tribunal for Foreign Exchange under section 19 FEMA is not maintainable and thus the same is liable to be dismissed........ + More
2018 (2) TMI 579
Abetting one Sh. P.G. Rawal in transferring foreign exchange in contravention of Section 8(3) read with 8(4) and Section 48 read with Section 64(2) - Held that - While the order in original has passed a very detailed order, however the adjudicating authority has not given any evidence or facts to state as to how the appellant has abetted with Sh. P.G. Rawal, in the said contravention. It appears that he has based his judgment on an inference from....... + More
2018 (1) TMI 1222
Contravention of section 3 FEMA - statement made under oath reliance - Held that - In harwala transactions, the main aspect is secrecy and stealth. Most of the facts relating to such transactions remain in the knowledge of the persons involved in such transactions. It is difficult for Authorities to unravel every link of such transitions. The burden is on the person to explain; otherwise adverse inference can be drawn based on surrounding facts a....... + More
2017 (11) TMI 839
Revision petition u/s 19(6) of FEMA against the order of penalty - contentions of the respondent is that revision petition filed by the revisionist is not maintainable as there is no specific provision in the Act - Held that - As gone through provisions of section 16 which provides for appointment of Central Government Officers as at Adjudicating Authority for holding an inquiry for the purpose of imposing any penalty against the respondent. As i....... + More
2017 (11) TMI 618
Non-realisation of export sale proceeds - Proceedings as contemplated under Section 18(2) & 18(3) read with Section 68(1) & 68(2) of FERA - Held that - It is evident that the Appellant joined as Director solely in the capacity of advisory role and was specifically excluded from the day to day operations of the company as evidenced from the correspondence. There cannot be any adverse inference against the Appellant‟s role as to its i....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 908
Review application - Held that - It is pertinent to mention that the order dated 16.07.2016 has not been challenged by the appellant/applicants in the higher court. It has become final. The amount fixed in the said order has not been deposited and it is apparent that the appellants have no intention to deposit the same. - We are of the view that the review application filed by the appellant/review applicant is not maintainable as the applicant ha....... + More
2017 (10) TMI 460
Condonation of Delay - reason i.e. the premises of the appellant firm lying locked and shifting of residence by the appellants as well as the chamber of the counsel of the appellant has been stated - Held that - As stated earlier, by an order dated 11th May, 2009 this Tribunal had directed the appellants to deposit 20% of their amount of penalty along with submissions of unconditional bank guarantee of remaining 30% within a period of 45 days fro....... + More
Search 
