SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, JJ.
Thirumalai Chemicals Limited
Versus.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3191-3194 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 23374-23377 of 2008)
Decided On: 11.04.2011

Advocates appeared:
Mohan Jayakar, Uma, Javaid Muzaffar and Umesh Kumar Khaitan, Advs.
Vivek Tankha, ASG, T.V. Ratnam, Rahul Kaushik, B.K. Prasad and Anil Katiyar, Advs.

Headnote:A) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226, Art.227, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT : S.13, S.19, S.19(1), S.19(2), S.45(5), S.49, S.49(1), S.49(3), S.49(4), S.49(5), S.49(6), S.51, GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.6, FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT : S.50, S.52(1), S.52(2), S.52(3), S.52(4), S.8(3), S.8(4), LIMITATION ACT : S.5:- The appeal arises out of the rejection of the appeal filed before the Appellate Board constituted under Foreign Exchange Management Act on the ground of delay applying the Section 52 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Held substantive rights like the right o file appeal under section 19 cannot be affected by the Repealing Act like FEMA and procedural rights like limitation cannot be amended with retrospective effect. Hence the appeald allowed and the appellate board was directed to hear the appeal on merits notwithstanding the delay.

       

JUDGMENT

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (in short FEMA) was right in rejecting a belated appeal filed under Section 19 of FEMA, applying the first proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 (in short FERA), instead of following the proviso to Sub-section (2) to Section 19 of FEMA.

3. M/s Tirumalai Chemicals Limited (in short 'the Company') had imported various consignments of benezene, orthoxalene etc. for home consumption. For the said purpose, the Company had opened Letters of Credit bearing No. MLCO 4359096 and No. 529/960487 on 28.09.96 and 07.08.96 respectively on their bankers ICICI Bank and Standard Chartered Bank (authorized dealers). By letters dated 07.12.96 and 18.01.97 Exchange Control Copies of bills of entry (in short, ECC - bills of entry) in relation to those imports were forwarded by the Company to the above mentioned Banks. As per the provisions of Exchange Control Manual (in short ECM), the authorized dealers had to submit the ECC-bills of entry submitted by the importers (the Company) to the Reserve Bank of India (in short RBI). The Company was under the bonafide impression that the documents submitted by it were forwarded by the authorized dealers to the RBI and that the RBI in turn had given due intimation to the Enforcement Directorate. The Company on 22.04.2004 received a telephonic communication from the office of the 3rd Respondent viz., Directorate of Enforcement, stating that it had passed various orders on 27.01.04 imposing a total penalty of Rs. 9,33,63,453/- on the Company on the ground that it had contravened the provisions of Sections 8(3) , 8(4) of FERA read with Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 49 of FEMA. Copies of the orders dated 27.01.04 were then received by the Company on 22.04.04 on request. From those orders the Company came to know that the Directorate of Enforcement had issued four show cause notices dated 14.05.02 stating that the Company had contravened Section 8(3) , Section 8(4) of FERA read with para 7A.20 (Chapter 7) of ECM and was required to show cause why adjudication proceedings be not initiated against the Company under Section 49 of FEMA for contravention of the above mentioned provisions. Further, it was also stated that the Company had failed to furnish the required bills/information/documents and did not avail of the opportunity of hearing in spite of notices issued to them on 29.08.02, 27.10.03 and 01.12.03. Orders dated 27.01.04 also indicated that an appeal would lie before the Appellate Tribunal after depositing the amount of penalty imposed within 45 days from the date on which the order was served. Reference was also made to Section 19 read with Section 49(5)(a) of FEMA.

4. The Company on receipt of the above mentioned orders dated 27.01.04 approached the authorized dealers and enquired whether they had forwarded the ECC of bills of entry to the RBI as required under the provisions of ECM. The ICICI Bank vide their letters dated 12.05.04 informed the Company that it had received ECC of bills of entry on 20.01.97 with difference of value. The ICICI Bank then forwarded a letter dated 15.05.04 to the RBI seeking its permission to accept the bills of entry stating that the Company had submitted the relevant documents on 20.01.97 with shortfall of value. The Standard Chartered Bank also vide their letter dated 12.05.04 informed the RBI that they had also received the Exchange Control Copy of bills of entry for the import in question from the Appellant Company on 09.12.96, but due to an inadvertent mistake had reported in their BEF Return that bills of entry were not submitted. The RBI vide letter dated nil of May, 2004 sent by registered AD informed the Enforcement Directorate as follows:

...Please refer to the outstanding entries reported in their respective


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top