2010 Supreme(Mad) 3746
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & G.M. AKBAR ALI
M/s. Fayshaw Apparels & Others
Versus
The Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange & Another
C.M.A.Nos.2101 to 2104 of 2010 & M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010
Decided On : 27-08-2010
For the Appellants:R. Muthukumaraswamy, Sr. Counsel for G. Derrick Sam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Dhandapani, Spl. Counsel for FEMA.
Headnote:
FEMA - Foreign Exchange Management Act - Section 8, Section 13 - The court discussed the contravention of provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 9 and 13(i) and (ii) of FEMR, 2000. The court also highlighted the legal provisions of Section 19 of FEMA, 1999 and its proviso, and the principles of undue hardship and safeguarding the interest of the revenue. The court emphasized the exercise of judicial discretion in imposing penalties and the importance of promoting the orderly development and maintenance of the foreign exchange market in India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, exporters of garments, failed to realize and repatriate the outstanding export proceeds, leading to allegations of contravention of provisions of FEMA, 1999. The Special Director imposed penalties on the appellants, which were challenged before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to show reasonable steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds and upheld the rejection of the applications for dispensation of pre-deposit. The court emphasized the exercise of judicial discretion in imposing penalties and the importance of safeguarding the interest of the revenue.
Issues: The issues involved the contravention of provisions of FEMA, 1999, the exercise of judicial discretion in imposing penalties, and the consideration of undue hardship in dispensation of pre-deposit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants failed to demonstrate undue hardship and reasonable steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds, and emphasized the importance of safeguarding the interest of the revenue in promoting the orderly development and maintenance of the foreign exchange market in India.
Final Decision: All the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the judgment.
R.BANUMATHI,J.
1. These Appeals arise out of the Order of Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi dated 28.5.2010 in Appeal Nos.91, 92, 93 and 94 of 2010 rejecting the applications for dispensation of pre-deposit and directing the Appellants to make payment of full amount of penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and holding that on failure to make full payment the appeals will be dismissed on that ground. M/s.Fayshaw Apparels is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2101 of 2010, M/s.Shaw Garments Pvt.Ltd. is the appellant in C.M.A.No.2103 of 2010 and B.P.Byram Shaw, the Managing Partner/Managing Director of the said firm and Company is the Appellant in C.M.A.Nos.2102 and 2104 of 2010.
2. The brief facts are that the Appellant firm/Company are exporters of garments covered by eight shipping bills through ICD, Irugur, Coimbatore and the same were exported through Tuticorin Port. The value of the outstanding export proceeds is Rs.1,13,20,461/- in respect of M/s.Fayshaw Apparels and Rs.87,92,412/- in respect of M/s.Shaw Garments Private Limited. In terms of Section 8 of Foreign Exchange Management Act (in short, "FEMA") the exporters are required to take all reasonable steps to realise and repatriate to India the amount of foreign exchange within prescribed period and manner as mentioned in the GR forms. According to the Department, the Appellants have failed to take all reasonable steps to realise and repatriate to India the foreign exchange to the tune of Rs,1,13,20,461/- and Rs.87,92,412/- and hence they are liable for appropriate action under FEMA, 1999.
3. The case of Appellants is that shipments were not realised in respect of two shipments and only part realisation was received. Show cause notices were issued to the Appellant firms and their Managing Director alleging that the Appellants failed to prove reasonable steps to realise the outstanding export proceeds in respect of 10 GR forms involving amount of Rs.1,13,20,461/- and Rs.87,92,412/-in contravention of the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with section 9 and 13(i)(ii) of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Service) Regulation, 2000 (in short, "FMR, 2000"). According to the Appellants, by letter dated 5.7.2007, they have intimated RBI about the non-realisation of the export proceeds and the efforts taken to realise the sale proceeds from K.Gunasekar, the agent of the buyer till they learnt that he was detained under COFEPOSA. Further, according to the Appellants, they have requested RBI to waive the outstanding export dues.
4. Holding that the Appellants have contravened provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulations 9 and 13(i) and (ii) of FEMR, 2000, the Special Director, by order No.SDE/SKS/IV/2/2010, imposed a penalty of Rs.40,00,000/-on M/s.Shaw Garments Pvt.Ltd., and further penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on the Managing Director and by other Order No.SDE/SKS/IV/1/2010, imposed a penalty of Rs.50,00,000/- on the firm M/s.Fayshaw Apparels and further penalty of Rs.10,00,000/-on the Managing Partner in terms of Section 13 of FEMA, 1999. Being aggrieved by the orders of the Special Director, the Appellants have preferred appeals before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi.
5. Holding that the Appellants have failed to show reasonable steps on their part which would have been taken by a prudent businessman under similar circumstances, referring to decisions of Supreme Court in MANOTOSH SAHA VS. SPECIAL DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, 2008(11) SCALE 603 and UNION OF IDNAI VS. ADANI EXPORTS LTD., 2007 AIR SCW 7134, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the applications for dispensation and directed the Appellants to make full payment of penalty within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and observing that on failure to make payment the appeals would be dismissed on that ground alone. Being aggrieved with the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting dispensation applica