The Hindu Business Line : HC ruling on penalty for offence under Foreign Trade Act

The licensing authority found that the fraud was committed by the person who was acting as a liaison agent, but the petitioner could not whitewash their involvement in the crime. The petitioner contended that according to the amended law, the penalty for contravening the provisions of the Act was not exceeding Rs 1,000 or five times the value of goods over which any contravention had been made.

Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai, April 13 An Offence alleged to have been committed by an exporter under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 (Central Act 22 of 1992) was punishable by award of penalty only in terms of the law which came into effect from June19, 1992, the Madras High Court has held.

Setting aside the impugned order dated December 29, 1998 of the Ministry of Commerce (Appellate Committee Cell), imposing higher penalties under the old Act (Imports & Exports [Control] Act, 1947), Mr Justice K. Chandru remitted back the issue to the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, for fresh disposal in accordance with the new Act (Central Act 22).

The writ petitioner, Trimex Minerals Pvt Ltd, Chennai, an exporter of slates, granites, etc, while challenging the order dated December 29, 1998 of the Appellate Committee Cell, contended that to avail of the incentive under export/import policy for year 1992-97 by issue of ‘exim scrips’, they engaged a middleman informally to handle the matter for expeditious delivery of such scrips.

According to them, the said middleman had fabricated certain documents to obtain exim scrips from the Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade in Puducherry.

It was stated that the licensing authority found that the fraud was committed by the person who was acting as a liaison agent, but the petitioner could not whitewash their involvement in the crime.

Penalty

Accordingly, by the order dated January 19, 1996, a penalty of Rs 2 crore was imposed on the petitioner-company.

Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner contended that according to the amended law, the penalty for contravening the provisions of the Act was not exceeding Rs 1,000 or five times the value of goods over which any contravention had been made.

Petitioner’s claim

The petitioner further said that they had not committed any offence, and it was the action of the intermediary who was not authorised by them. If at all the petitioner was guilty of any contravention of the law, they would have to be proceeded only under the new Act.

The Additional Solicitor General submitted that whether under the old Act or the new Act, the petitioner had committed fraudulent transactions.

Their theory of some intermediary had independently committed such acts was not borne out by records.

The Judge held that since the respondents had imposed penalty according to the old Act, the impugned order of R-3 appellate committee was hereby set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Ministry for fresh disposal in accordance with Central Act 22 of 1992.

More Stories on : Courts/Legal Issues | Granite & Marble | Exports & Imports | Tamil Nadu

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
HC ruling on penalty for offence under Foreign Trade Act

RBI should look to boost demand, not liquidity

TTD Hundi holds its own

Swedish nuclear team in India

Amplify Mindware in pact with Irish varsity

ICFAI centre bags awards in case study writing contest

‘Banks should pump more money into the economy’

‘Dilute navratna stake to check fiscal deficit’

DoT asked to explain concerns raised by CVC