TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue shares to the foreign investor within 180 days as again mandated by the RBI. Instead the money was diverted to buy properties and land in their name which was not the purpose of the inward remittance. In fact, in the stay petition the appellant at para 5 have accepted their liability which was not discharged. Their claim that they had taken up with RBI for compounding also does not strengthen their argument in as much as the RBI had returned their compounding application vide their letter dated 22.08.2012 but the appellants never considered filing an appeal or representation against the said letter of RBI. They, therefore, way back in 2012 had accepted the non-compounding by the RBI. They have pleaded financial hardship but have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her intimate the Reserve Bank of India within 30 days of the inward remittance, or failed to issue shares to the foreign investors within the stipulated 180 days of the inward remittances. 2. The appellants have pleaded that this was only a technical offence and hence did not merit levy of any penalty. That there was no intent or mensrea on their part to contravene any provisions of law. They also stated they had taken up with the Reserve Bank of India for compounding but the Reserve Bank of India returned their application without any decision. That as per Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules 2000 it was mandatory on the part of the compounding authority, in this case the RBI, to pass an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to pay or secure the amount and irreparable loss are to be considered. The said discretion is to be exercised in accordance with well settled principles for exercise of judicial discretion. 5. In this case, the appellants have not denied that they did not inform the RBI within the stipulated period as mandated by RBI, nor did they issue shares to the foreign investor within 180 days as again mandated by the RBI. Instead the money was diverted to buy properties and land in their name which was not the purpose of the inward remittance. In fact, in the stay petition the appellant at para 5 have accepted their liability which was not discharged. Their claim that they had taken up with RBI for compounding also does not stren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
