Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (6) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d P C Factoring, Netherlands. These companies in spite of various reminders sent by the appellant, failed to make payments to the appellant for the goods received by them. Hence, the books of account of the appellant showed certain amounts as out-standing from these companies. The appellant sought permission of the Reserve Bank of India to waive the receipt of the said amounts from the foreign buyers as non-recoverable amounts, having taken steps to recov- er the same and that two foreign buyers had gone into liquidation. After issuing show cause notice dated 15-4-1988 the Directorate of Enforce- ment at Chennai initiated proceedings against the appellant not accepting the written explanation dated 6-10-1988. In that proceedings, the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... any delay in realising the amount beyond the prescribed period is an offence under section 18(2). Goods viz readymade garments were exported by the appellant on 25-2-1983. The appellant had sent only telex message and letters in between 8-6-1983 and 11-2-1984. The respondent initiated proceedings by the end of 1986. Only thereafter, on 15-2-1986 the appel-lant wrote to the Councellor, that means from 15-2-1984 till 15-2-1986, nothing was done by the appellant. They should have informed the RBI after the declared period. They failed to take legal proceedings to recover the amount. Therefore, the claim that they could not take any action as the buyer company was liquidated is only a ruse to escape their liability. Further, his submission t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the appellant had failed to realise the export value of the goods there is no question of law for interference in an appeal before the High Court. An inference drawn from the facts would be a question of facts if the point for determination is one of pure fact. But if such a point is mixed question of law and fact, inference from facts would be a question of law. A finding of fact without evidence to support it or if based on relevant and irrelevant matters is not unassailable. A legal inference from a proved fact is a question of law, but unless a legal inference is drawn from a proved fact, a finding of fact cannot be turned into a question of law by asking whether there is any evidence. It is also settled law that High Court cannot en .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cellor on 15-2-1986 i.e. subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings in question. In the mean-while, the buyer company was liquidated. Had the appellant taken prompt steps, the amount could have been recovered. Thus, it is clear the appellant has tailed to take all reasonable steps to recover the payment of the goods. Therefore, the appellant shall be presumed to have contra- vened the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 18. There is no pre-scribed period for initiating the proceedings. The bona fides of the exporters who commit default in recovering payment will have to be considered with the scope of the Act. The avowed object of the provision is to ensure that the nation does not lose foreign exchange which is very much esse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of non-realisation of the same is confirmed by the respon- dent No. 1 is illegal and opposed to the documentary evidence produced by the appellant. Therefore, the argument of the appellant that it is entitled for deduction of this amount out of the amount of penalty imposed on the appellants, deserves to be accepted. 8. The further argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount not recovered is a very paltry sum compared to the business transaction of the appellant and therefore, it can be waived is liable to be rejected taking into consideration the object of the Act as mentioned above. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed subject to the deduc-tions indicated above. SCL q DECEMBER 20, 1999 - - T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates