A.H. SONS COM. Vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri B.K. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of Union of India.

(2.) The revisionists, M/s A.H. Sons Company and three others, have preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 27.2.1990 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Case No. 40 of 1986 ( Union of India vs. A.H. Sons and others ) under section 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'FERRA Act') District Varanasi whereby the discharge application was rejected and framed the charges under section 56 of the Act.

(3.) Brief facts which give rise to this revision are that the complaint was filed under section 56 of the FERRA Act with the allegation that accused no. 1 is the partnership firm having accused nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Ashfaq Hussain since deceased as its partners having their registered office at Post Box No. 143, Bhadohi - 221401, District Varanasi and as partners were incharge of and were responsible to the said firm for this conduct of business as well as the firm at the relevant time in terms of Section 68 of the FERRA Act. The accused firm and its partners are manufacturers and exporters of Indian handmade carpets and rugs to different countries outside India. During the year 1979-80, the accused persons exported handmade Woolen Carpets to various overseas countries through four invoices amounting to Rs. 4,58,996.20 under G.R.I. form and the accused persons did not repatriate this mentioned export proceeds of Rs. 4,58,996.20 in prescribed manner nor did they obtain any extension of time for repatriating these export proceeds from the Reserve Bank of India. The aforesaid payment having not been received by the accused persons within the prescribed time limit of six months from the date of shipments. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to the accused persons by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against each of them for the contravention of the provisions of Section 18(2) read with 18(3) of the FERRA Act with Central Government Notification No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 dated 01.01.1974. In the course of adjudication proceedings so held by the Special director of Enforcement, New Delhi, it was observed that the export proceeds in respect of the GRI form nos. CAD-733246 and CAD-733271 had been fully realized by the accused persons. As regards the other GRI forms, it was observed that the accused persons had realised part proceeds amounting to Rs. 13,960.57 in respect of balance two G.R.I. forms having a balance of Rs. 1,97,472.24 which is still to be realized by the accused persons through proper banking channel. The accused persons could not submit any documentary evidence to show that they actually made any effort to realise this outstanding balance of Rs. 1,97,472.24. The full export proceeds having not been realised by the accused persons within the prescribed time limit, the matter was considered by the Special Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and under his Adjudication Order No. SDE(M)/III/14/83 dated 10.6.1983 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the accused no. 1 and Rs. 10,000/- on each of the accused persons nos. 2 to 4 and Shri Ashfaq Husain since deceased. Against the adjudication the appeal was filed in which penalty amount was reduced by the Appellat Board to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- on the accused no. 1 and to the tune of Rs. 7500/- to the accused person Nos. 2 to 4. The accused persons have made themselves liable for prosecution for contravention of Provision of FERA Act. All the accused persons were asked to submit reply but no reply was received from them.