Page 118 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

4 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

only defence available in terms of proviso to sub­section (1) of Section 42 of the FEMA
Act that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due
diligence to prevent such contravention. In the reply filed to the show cause notice by the
appellant, no such specific plea has been taken. [paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Section 16(6) - Foreign ex-
change procured for import of goods - However, Bill of Entry not submitted,
goods kept in bonded warehouse and no steps to clear same - HELD : Section
10(6) ibid was attracted - It was case of non-utilisation of foreign exchange
procured for completing import procedure - Steps should have been taken to
surrender foreign exchange within time specified in Regulation 6 of Foreign
Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign
Exchange) Regulations, 2000. [para 10]
FEMA (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange)
Regulations, 2000 - Regulation 6(1) - Period specified for surrender of foreign
exchange if it was not used take delivery of imported goods - HELD : It does
not mean that contravention ceased to exist beyond specified period - After
expiry of specified period, contravention is deemed until rectified. [para 11]
Appeal to Supreme Court - Dismissal of special leave petition - Con-
sequences of - Finding and conclusion of lower authorities against petitioner
attain finality and cannot be reopened. - The appellant wanted to argue that in the
facts of the present case, there was no contravention of Section 10(5) of the FEMA Act or
any other provision necessitating action under Section 10(6) of the said Act muchless
initiating complaint procedure. Ordinarily, the appellant could have been allowed to pur-
sue such argument, but for the dismissal of the special leave petition filed by the Compa-
ny. In that, consequent to the dismissal of the petition filed by the Company, the finding
and conclusion recorded by the adjudicating authority as upheld by the first appellate
authority, and of the High Court recording contravention committed by the Company
and for which complaint action was just and proper including the imposition of penalty
as awarded against the Company and the appellant has attained finality. That cannot be
reopened muchless at the instance of the present appellant. This is reinforced by the order
issuing notice on the special leave petition filed by the present appellant, dated
30-3-2009. It is indicative of the fact that the contentions specific to absolve the appellant
from the complaint action could be examined. [para 7]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund — (2006) 5 SCC 361 — Relied on ............................ [Paras 11, 14]
Director of Enforcement v. M.C.T.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. — (1996) 2 SCC 471
— Relied on ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 11]
Gujarat Travancore Agency, Chochin v. Commissioner of Income Tax
— (1989) 3 SCC 52 — Relied on .................................................................................................... [Para 11]
Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa — (1969) 2 SCC 627 — Distinguished ............................ [Para 14]
Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Cabot International Capital Corporation
— (2005) 123 CompCas 841 (Bom.) — Relied on ....................................................................... [Para 11]
[Judgment per : A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. - This appeal emanates from the
complaint proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority being Deputy Di-
rector, Enforcement Directorate Foreign Exchange Management Act, under Sec-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  166