9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble High Court under his communication of 5-10-1995 which was received in the registry on 19-10-1995. The appellant sent an application dated 28-10-1995 which was received in the registry on 31-10-1995 seeking adjournment of the hearing on the ground that Shri Shyam Behari Goenka, Director, who is familiar with the subject-matter, is out of station. It has been requested to post the appeal in the middle of December 1995. 2. In my opinion, in view of the directions made by the Hon'ble High Court in the W.P. filed by the appellant himself, there is no justification for seeking the adjournment as prayed. I, therefore, reject the application and proceed to dispose of the case ex parte against the appellant. Dr. Shamsuddin is present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o £25,530.68." On this finding, he found the appellant-company and its Director S.B. Goenka guilty of contravention of section 16(1) and 16(1)(a), read with section 68 for not taking any steps for securing the receipt of the commission amount, and imposed the penalties as herein above stated. The learned Adjudicating Officer erred in law in returning the finding of the contravention of section 16(1)(a) and imposing penalty therefor merely on the appellants having not taken any steps to bring into India the said commission amount of £ 25,530,68. He failed to take note of the provisions of section 16(2) which expressly provides for the event where a person failes to comply with the requirements of section 16(1). Section 16( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere a person has admittedly failed to comply with the requirement to sub section (1) of section 16 in relation to any foreign exchange which he has right to receive, the section requires the Reserve Bank to consider giving him such directions as appear to be expedient for the purpose of securing the receipt of the said foreign exchange. The consequence of failure to comply with the requirement of sub-section (1) is laid down in sub section (2) itself. Therefore, any failure to comply with the requirement of sub-section (1)(a) by itself would not attract the provisions of sections 51 and 50. The position would be different in a case of failure to comply with the requirement of sub-section (1)(b) where the whole amount ceases to be receivable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
