Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Further several summons were issued to Mr.Sharavan Kumar, Partner, of the firm for his appearance before the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Chennai, but he did not respond on the same pretext or the other. However, he finally appeared on 11.09.2003, on which date he was examined with reference to the pending export bills, and his statement was recorded. In his statement, inter alia, stated that as per his records, there were seven bills for a total value of Rs.1,66,72,214/- pending realisation, in respect of M/s.Dhaneswara Overseas. He also furnished a list of such outstanding export bills. When he was confronted with the statement of pending export bills forwarded by M/s.Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited, which shows eight pending export bills for a total value of Rs.1,64,90,623/- he clarified that GR.No.AP784860, dated 23.07.1998, for US$ 900/-, in respect of export made to M/s.Gold Champa International Inc., New York, did not belong to his firm and there was no such bill pending in his records and that the difference in the total value of pending bills between his statement and that of the bank's was due to exchange fluctuations; that in respect of export bills due from M/s.Bon Mart Limited, Israel, M/s.Danny's Jamaica and M/s.Grace General Trading Ajman, he had applied for extension of time through his bankers to RBI and the extension of time for realizing the proceeds was given upto 10.11.2003 by Reserve Bank India vide its letter dated 11.08.2003.

5. It was seen from the foregoing facts of the case that M/s.Dhaneswara Overseas, as per the statement furnished by their bankers M/s.Tamil Nadu Merchantile Bank had export outstanding of Rs.1,64,90,623/- in respect of 8 GRS. No extension of time/waiver has been given by the Reserve Bank of India beyond 10.11.2003 as would be seen from the above said letters of Reserve Bank of India. Shri.Sharavan Kumar and Daman Prakash being the partners of the firm were responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm during the relevant period. On the basis of the above, the complaint dated 30.08.2004 has been filed by the Assistant Director before the Special Director for enforcement and the same was considered and that the show cause notice as mentioned was issued to the notices. Hence, the above case has been filed against the respondent.

15. The Senior counsel Mr.K.Ramaswamy appearing for the respondent submits that the show cause notice served on the notices whereas reply to the same has not been submitted within the specified period. Subsequently, the case was posted for personal hearing on 07.12.2004 meanwhile the appellant firm informed through their letter dated 23.11.2004 that the partner Mr.Sharavan Kumar is expected back to their office by 30th January 2005, as he was attending the work to collect payments giving legal notices and sending all relevant papers to the concerned government authorities for taking action at their end has no reply on behalf of the firm was given with documentary proof as to what action had been taken to recover the export dues, outstanding, the request of notice No.II would not be acceded to. The learned counsel further contended that the notice No.3 in their telegram dated 04.12.2004 request for short adjournment instead of 07.12.2004. Accordingly the case was filed on 23.12.2004, at Chennai. The appellant had stated that the firm is a family partnership company. The partners were Sharavan Kumar, Narendra Kumar who expired on 15.11.1996 hence his son Kishore Kumar was inducted as a partner from 16.11.1996, Shri.Regraj Rathod and Shri.Daman Prakash that the firm as well as the partners are assessed for Income Tax and that the firm has been carrying on business from 1992 onwards. The highly competent counsel further submits that the Deputy Commissioner of Customs responsible for the recovery of Rs.15,42,642/- of draw back of the Customs and Central Excise duty draw back rules 1995 from M/s.Dhaneswara Overseas, on the ground that export proceeds in respect of supporting bills dated 18.12.2000. There were 8 export bills for a total value of Rs.1,64,90,623/- in respect of export of fabrics and garments made during the period of August 1998 to January 2001, the said particulars furnished by M/s.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank. One of the partners Sharavan Kumar was examined and his statements were recorded relating to the finding export bills. As per his statement there were 7 bills for a total value of Rs.1,66,72,214/- pending realization in respect of M/s.Dhaneswara Overseas. Mr. Sharavan Kumar, a partner also furnished a list of outstanding export bills. When he confirmed with the statement of pending export bills forwarded by M/s.Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited which showed 8 export pending bills for a total value of Rs.1,64,90,623/-. Further one of the partners Mr.Sharavan Kumar had openly admitted that the appellant herein is also a partner of M/s.Dhaneswara Overseas, who also is responsible for the conduct of the firms business. Additionally as per the letter given by the Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, it was confirmed that the said pending bills are belonging to Ms.Dhaneswara Overseas.

16. The highly competent counsel Mr.K.Ramasamy further submits that as per the letter issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Mr.Sharavan kumar and Mr.Daman Prakash the appellant herein being the partners of the firm were respectively responsible for the conduct of the firm during the relevant period. The learned counsel has also filed a counter statement and submitted further arguments. Mr.Sharavan kumar furnished a list of such outstanding export bills, when he was confronted with the statement of pending export bills forwarded by the Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank which showed spending export bills for a total value of Rs.1,64,90,623/-, he clarified that G.R.No.9.AP784860 dated 23.07.1998 for US$ in respect of export made to M/s.Gold Champa International Inc., New York, did not belong to his firm and there was no such bill pending in his records and that the difference in the total value of pending bills between his statements and that of the bank's was due to exchange fluctuations, further Mr.Sharvankumar stated in his statement that in respect of export bills due from M/s.Bonmark Limited, Israel, M/s.Dannys Jamaica and M/s.Grace Jarrel Trading Ajman, he had applied for an extension of time through his bankers through Reserve Bank of India and the extension of time for realizing the proceeds were given upto 10.11.2003 by the Reserve Bank of India and that there has been no response from the above buyers and he was informed that the goods were not taken delivery from the Bonded Ware house, because the bills are in D.P at site and that the goods were reported to be gone for public auction.