Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

71. This is an extremely important question raised, as section 7 of the THE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND 1 7. No person shall make any import or export except under an Importer- exporter Code Number granted by the Director General or the officer au- thorised by the Director General in this behalf, in accordance with the proce-

CC No. 34/2011 69 of 101 REGULATION) ACT, 1992 prohibits export by any person without the Importer­ Exporter Code No. Needless to say code is entity specific. A partnership firm and proprietorship firm are two different entities. It appears to be most improbable if M/s Simran Exports Proprietorship could have been allowed to export the goods with Import Export Code of M/s Simran Exports partnership firm. It did deserve attention from the Accused No.1 Late Sh. Satnam Singh. He could not have allowed it to go abegging and proceed to sanction the loan.

(a) Letter of credit in the case did not relate to M/s Simran Export Proprietorship A/s No. 1526 but M/s Simran Export A/c No. OCC/ 1354, therefore, Packing Credit Limit could not have sanctioned; and CC No. 34/2011 92 of 101
(b) Accused No.1, Chief Manager of the Bank, Late Satnam Singh had overlooked the query of the witness PW10 Sh. K.S. Murthy as to whether export code held earlier in the name of M/s Simran Export, when it was a partnership firm, could be transferred to the M/s Simran Export Proprietorship firm. This question was important firstly Importer­Exporter Code are entity specific a partnership firm and a proprietorship firm are not same entities and as per section 7 of the THE FOREIGN TRADE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1992 no export is possible without an Importer­Exporter Code being granted under the said Act. Since M/s Simran Export Proprietorship firm did not have an Importer­Exporter Code it could not have exported goods under the Letter of Credit in question and,therefore, could not have been sanctioned Packing Credit Limit.