NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Nirmal Agarwal – Complainant
versus
Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.110 of 2007
Decided on 8.11.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services Banking – Letter of credit – Dispute – Maintainability of – The complainant booked 125 ‘Cross Currency Forward Contracts’ by submitting Contract No.CGTIPL/0506/VAR019 and EPGs as underlying exposure/contract during June, 2006 to November, 2006 to buy United States Dollar. Contract No.CGTIPL/0506/VAR019 cannot be treated an export order. In order to take benefit of favourable exchange rates, the complainant cancelled 46 ‘Cross Currency Forward Contracts’ and rebooked them and earned Rs.3212292/- by doing so. Rebooking of cancelled ‘Cross Currency Forward Contracts’ was prohibited under Paragraph-28 of Schedule-I of Foreign Exchange Management (Foreign Exchange Derivative Contracts) Regulations, 2000. Findings of RBI that these transactions were suspicions i.e. (i) There was no export order for export of any good from India; (ii) These transactions were aimed for earning profit from interest, due to different rate of interest in two countries and not an export related transaction; and (iii) By cancelling ‘Cross Currency Forward Contracts’ and rebooking it, the complainant was earning profit, from foreign currency exchange, in violation of the law. These transactions resulted in artificially inflating the foreign inflows into India without any actual export from India and could result in undesirable impacts on the country’s exchange rate management and balance of payments. Letter of RBI dated 17.04.2007 and cancellation letter of the bank dated 24.04.2007 do not suffer from any illegality – According to the bank, on closure of premature FDRs, the bank erroneously paid interest @6%, 6.25% and 6.5% on different FDRs in place of 4.5% and 5% interest. it had refunded excess money to the complainant for which recovery proceeding has been initiated before Debt Recovery Tribunal, where the complainant has also filed its counter claim. The dispute relating to accounts will be more appropriately decided by Debt Recovery Tribunal and both the parties are given liberty to agitate their remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 6 to 15].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the complainant, Mr. Arun Agrawal, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate, for opposite party-2.
2. Nirmal Agarwal has filed above complaint for directing Bank of Baroda to pay (i) Rs.15386807/- i.e. his balance surplus amount; (ii) Rs.8104698/-, i.e. less amount remitted to Cargill; (iii) Rs.6782399/-, i.e. excess amount remitted to the beneficiary; (iv) Rs.53102528/-, i.e. less interest paid as per contractual obligation; (v) Rs.4279581/-, i.e. the amount deducted from the interest payable on the term deposits; (vi) Rs.638151134/-, i.e. debited on account of cancellation of foreign currency forward contract; (vii) Rs.3212292/-, i.e. loss suffered on account of cancellation of foreign currency forward contract; (viii) Rs.11336887/-, i.e. the commission charged on the letters of guarantee, cancelled unilaterally; (ix) Interest on these amounts @18% per annum from 21.03.2007 till the date of payment; (x) Rs.10000000/-, as compensation for business loss; (xi) litigation costs; and (xii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts of the case. During arguments, the counsel for the complainant informed that after filing the complainant, the bank had paid Rs.3212292/-, i.e. loss suffered on account of cancellation of ‘foreign currency forward contract’ and Rs.11336887/-, i.e. the commission charged on the letters of guarantee.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint and emerge from documents, are as follows:-
(a) M/s. Ipog International Limited was a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in export of general merchandize and agricultural products. M/s. Cargill International Trading Pte, Singapore, a subsidiary company of Cargill Inc. USA (the buyer) entered into a contract with M/s. Ipog International Limited (the complainant), vide Contract No.CGTIPL/0506/VAR019 dated 28.03.2006, for export of “any agricultural products and any other goods as the buyer and seller agree in writing”. Prepayment amount was Japanese Yen (JPY) 1402920000/- subject to issue of “Stand by Letter of Credit” by a bank acceptable to the buyer. The buyer agreed to remit the amount within seven days of receiving “Stand by Letter of Credit”.
(b) The complainant approached Bank of Baroda, Branch at: 111, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West) Mumbai (the bank) for grant of export related fund base and non-fund base facilities to perform above contract and had meeting with senior officers on 23.03.2006. The bank sanctioned the facility on 25.03.2006 on the conditions that (i) guarantee will be operational after receipt of advance payment; (ii) the amount received from the buyer in advance be kept in the bank as FDR; (iii) Exchange risk for foreign currency to be borne by the complainant; (iv) Processing charges, documentation charges, advocate fee, legal charges and charges levied by advising bank to be borne by the complainant; and (v) furnishing security & documents i.e. (a) Counter Indemnity; (b) FDR equivalent to guarantee value; (c) Personal guarantee of the directors; and (d) Undertaking. By way of prime security, home loan of Rs.2439000/- in the name of Rahul Chokhani (the director) and of Rs.2323000/- in the name of Suman Agarwal (the director) were taken.
(c) The complainant opened Current Account with the bank for ‘packing credit limit’ of Rs.one crore and ‘non-fund based limit’ of Rs.50/- lacs, on 22.03.2006. Thereafter, the bank issued “Stand by Letter of Credit” to the buyer, time to time. In pursuance thereof the buyer used to remit the amount to the bank and the bank used to issue “Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate”. Details of the amounts received and converted into “fixed deposits” on different times and “foreign currency contracts” are given below:—
| Gtee No. | Date of issue/ effective date | Amount of guarantee (JPY) | Amount of advance payment (JPY) | Expiry date |
| 2611FGPER106 | 29/03/06 |
|
|
|
|
| 04/04/06 | 1, | ||
The need for initiating proceedings within a reasonable period and the unfairness and unreasonableness of initiating proceedings after a significant lapse of time.
Insurance claims must be honored if the failure to accept goods is covered under the policy, despite alleged exclusions.
A person availing services for commercial profit-making purposes is excluded from definition of Consumer.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.