Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"9.2. As far as the appellant No.1, a FFMC and its two directors are concerned, it is an admitted fact that the foreign exchange was delivered at the residence and business premises of Sh.Mahas Kumar Moitra by the FFMC allegedly to three persons but it remained unverifiable whether the three persons namely, Shri Kumaresh Poddar, Shri Bishwanath Roy and Shri Abdul Haque were present at the premises at the time of delivery or not. The FFMC did not verify that when the applications were made for and on behalf of M/s.Leather Crafts and Goods Exports, the payment for the exchange was made by Sh.Moitra from his bank account. The FFMC failed to verify whether M/s.Leather Crafts and Goods Exports in fact submitted any such applications. It is not necessary that each and every procedure is outlined by the RBI. The foreign exchange is released for utilisation as per the provisions of FEMA and not for any misutilisation in contravention of provisions of FEMA. If the foreign exchange is released by the FFMC without care and inadequate verification and is found misutilised, the FFMC is equally responsible for its misutilisation. In the present case, in spite of overwhelming evidence, the FFMC did not make any verification and instead delivered the currency at the residence and business premises outside the authorised premises. Therefore, the AA was justified in holding that the appellant company violated provisions of FEMA. The penalty imposed at Rs.2,10,000/- is very reasonable and is confirmed. The two directors of the company are equally responsible for the conduct of the business premises and for contravention of the provisions of FEMA. They are under obligation to see that the provisions of FEMA and guidelines of the RBI are properly applied so that there is no violation. The penalty imposed on these two directors at Rs.20,000/- each is reasonable and is confirmed The three appeals filed by the appellant No.1, 2 & 3 are dismissed."
(ii) Sh.Manas Kumar Moitra admitted that he purchased foreign exchange from the FFMC for his own behalf vide application dt.22.8.2000 and 9.9.2000 in the name of his company M/s.Shree Exports Ltd./M/s.S.G. International and paid through pay orders on its bank account. If the pay orders so issued were utilised for purchasing the foreign exchange on the applications of M/s.Shree Exports Ltd./M/s.S.G. International, company owned by Sh.Moitra, it is necessary to examine as to which pay orders were received/encashed from Bharat Overseas Bank which were received by the FFMC while releasing the foreign exchange to the extent of US$1,25,000 to these three persons. Necessary verification from the Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., shall be necessary. It may involve unexplained and unaccounted payment for purchase of the foreign exchange. This may require a reference to the Income Tax Authorities.
"9.2. As far as the appellant No.1, a FFMC and its two directors are concerned, it is an admitted fact that the foreign exchange was delivered at the residence and business premises of Sh.Mahas Kumar Moitra by the FFMC allegedly to three persons but it remained unverifiable whether the other two persons, Sh.Nirpen Biswas and Sh.Swpapan Krishnan Paul were present at the premises at the time of delivery or not. The FFMC did not verify that when the applications were made for and on behalf of M/s.Lamco Exports Pvt. Ltd., the payment for the exchange was made by Sh.Moitra from his bank account. The FFMC failed to verify whether M/s.Lamco Exports Pvt. Ltd., in fact submitted any such applications. It is not necessary that each and every procedure is outlined by the RBI. The foreign exchange is released for utilisation as per the provisions of FEMA and not for any misutilisation in contravention of provisions of FEMA. If the foreign exchange is released by the FFMC without care and inadequate verification and is found misutilised, the FFMC is equally responsible for its misutilisation. In the present case, in spite of overwhelming evidence, the FFMC did not make any verification and instead delivered the currency at the residence and business premises outside the authorised premises. Therefore, the AA was justified in holding that the appellant company violated provisions of FEMA. The penalty imposed at Rs.2,50,000/- is very reasonable and is confirmed. The two directors of the company are equally responsible for the conduct of the business premises and for contravention of the provisions of FEMA. They are under obligation to see that the provisions of FEMA and guidelines of the RBI are properly applied so that there is no violation. The penalty imposed on these two directors at Rs.30,000/- each is reasonable and is confirmed The three appeals filed by the appellant No.1, 2 & 3 are dismissed."
(iii) Sh.Manas Kumar Moitra admitted that he purchased foreign exchange from the FFMC for his own behalf vide application dt.22.8.2000 and 9.9.2000 in the name of his company M/s.Shree Exports Ltd., and paid through pay orders on its bank account. If the pay orders so issued were utilised for purchasing the foreign exchange on the applications of M/s.Shree Exports Ltd., a company owned by Sh.Moitra, it is necessary to examine as to which pay orders were received/encashed from Bharat Overseas Bank which were received by the FFMC while releasing the foreign exchange to the extent of US$1,50,000 to these three persons. Necessary verification from the Overseas Bank Ltd., shall be necessary. It may involve unexplained and unaccounted payment for purchase of the foreign exchange. This may require a reference to the Income Tax Authorities.