M/s Ralson Industries Limited (“The Appellant”) was engaged in business of manufacture, sale and export of bicycle tyres and tubes. During 2002 to 2007, the Appellant made export to M/s Emirate Technologies Ltd. LLC, Dubai, UAE. The Appellant received full payment against the exports. However, during 2007, the overseas buyer withheld the payment of INR 3.36 crores on account of defects found in the exports. The Appellant contended that the Managing Director of the Appellant had personally visited the overseas buyer to persuade the overseas buyer to make good the payment. The Respondent held that the Appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the FEMA Act, 1999 r/w Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation & Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulation, 2000 and Regulation 8 & 9 of FEMA (Export of Goods and Services) Regulation, 2000. Therefore, penalty of INR 75,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant company and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- each was imposed on the 4 Directors.
The Appellant contended that it has taken all reasonable steps to recover the outstanding dues. Further, The application filed by the Appellant before the RBI seeking writing off the outstanding amount is pending before the RBI. The Respondent contended that neither the Appellant nor RBI informed at any stage that RBI has accepted to write off the amount pending for realisation. Also, the Appellants failed to provide any evidence to show efforts to re-import the goods to India, and any legal step taken against the claim of the buyer.
Hon’ble Tribunal held that the application to write-off the outstanding export proceeds remains pending before the RBI. Hence, it cannot absolve the Appellants of the statutory obligation to realize the export proceeds within the prescribed period. The failure to realize the export proceeds amounting to ₹3.36 crores within the stipulated time and to obtain approval for write-off from RBI constitute violation of the statutory mandate. However, Since the amount not recovered is merely about 9% of the value of the exports made and the director of the company has visited Dubai for the realisation of the outstanding export proceeds, the penalty amount is reduced from INR 75 Lacs to INR 5 Lacs. Further, penalty is waived on 2 directors appointed after the event of contravention and penalty on remaining 2 directors was reduced from INR 5 Lacs to INR 2.5 Lacs
1. Brief facts of the case:
- M/s Ralson Industries Limited (“The Appellant”) was engaged in business of manufacture, sale and export of bicycle tyres and tubes.
- The Appellant held a very good reputation as an export house and had also been awarded certificates and had been facilitated by the Government and its agencies for the outstanding export performance.
- During 2002, the Appellant received several orders from M/s Emirate Technologies Ltd. LLC, Dubai, UAE for export of Bicycle Tyres and Tubes. The Company exported 426 consignments during the period 2002 to 2007, out of which 8 consignments were found defective.
- The Appellant had received full payment against the exports. However, during 2007, the overseas buyer withheld the payment against 32 consignments out of a total of 61 consignments exported in the year 2007.
- This withholding was related to the defects found in the exports made during the preceding years i.e. 2002 to 2006.
- The amount withheld by the overseas buyer was USD 820090 equivalent to Indian Rs. 3.36 Crores.
- The Appellant contended that the Managing Director of the Appellant had personally visited the overseas buyer, twice, in the years 2010 and 2013, to persuade the overseas buyer to make good the payment withheld by them since 2007.
- The Assistant Director of Enforcement, Indore filed a Complaint 18.12.2014 alleging that the Appellant company had contravened the provisions of FEMA. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad, based on such a complaint, issued an SCN dated 29.12.2014 to the Appellant and its four Directors calling upon them to show cause why the inquiries may be not held against them for contravention of the provisions of FEMA, 1999.
- Accordingly, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 26th March, 2015 holding that The Appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the FEMA Act, 1999 r/w Regulation 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation & Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulation, 2000 and Regulation 8 & 9 of FEMA (Export of Goods and Services) Regulation, 2000.
- Penalty under Section 13 (1) of FEMA Act of Rs 75,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant company and penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- each was imposed on the 4 Directors of the company namely Sh. Rajnish Pahwa, Sh. P. S. Sharma, Sh. Praveen Chawla and Sh. Sham Sunder.
- Therefore, the Appellant filed the appeal.
2. 関連する法的抜粋
Relevant legal provisions are reiterated below for ready reference:
- Section 8 of the FEMA Act, 1999 is reiterated below:
“Realisation and repatriation of foreign exchange.—
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, where any amount of foreign exchange is due or has accrued to any person resident in India, such person shall take all reasonable steps to realise and repatriate to India such foreign exchange within such period and in such manner as may be specified by the Reserve Bank. “
3. Contention of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that:
- 上訴人は、未回収の債権を回収するためにあらゆる合理的な措置を講じてきた。
- インド準備銀行（RBI）およびFEMA（外国為替管理法）の規定に基づき、未回収額の償却を求めて上訴人がRBIに提出した申請は、現在もRBIにおいて審査中である。
- また、上訴人は各年度の輸出FOB価格の10%を上限として「自己償却」を行う権利を有していた。
4. 被申立人の主張
被申立人は以下の通り主張した：
- 上訴人およびRBIのいずれからも、未回収の金額の償却をRBIが承認したという通知は、いかなる段階においてもなされていない。
- さらに、上訴人は当該商品をインドへ再輸入するための努力や、買主の主張に対して講じた法的措置を示す証拠を提示できていない。
- 上訴人には3,360万ルピーの未回収輸出代金が存在するが、これは2002年から2006年の期間における未回収輸出代金の10%という制限の範囲内には収まっていない。
- この不作為により、上訴人はFEMAの規定に違反した。
5. 控訴審裁判所による分析
控訴審裁判所は以下の通り分析した：
- 上訴人は、1999年FEMA第8条およびFEMA（物品・サービスの輸出）規則2000年第9条に基づき義務付けられている、輸出代金回収のためのあらゆる合理的な措置を講じたことを立証できていない。
- The application to write-off the outstanding export proceeds remains pending before the RBI. Hence, it cannot absolve the Appellants of the statutory obligation to realize the export proceeds within the prescribed period.
- 商品の欠陥や海外の買主による支払拒否に関する主張はもっともではあるが、FEMAが定める強制的な外貨回収要件を優先させることはできない。
- 上訴人は、最高裁判所の判決であるShailendra Swarup対Enforcement Directorate事件 [(2020) 16 SCC 561]を引用した。当該判決がFEMA第42条に基づく個人の責任原則を明確にしているという点において、我々はこの主張に妥当性を認める。
- 最高裁の法理を適用し、本件の事実関係を検討した結果、以下の通り判断される：
- Shri Sham Sunder氏およびShri Praveen Chawla氏：両名は、申し立てられた違反行為が発生した期間の後に取締役に就任した。したがって、就任前の違反行為について両名の責任を問うことは不適切かつ不当である。
- Sh. Rajnish Pahwa氏：マーケティングおよび輸出担当。
- Sh. P. S. Sharma氏：生産および管理担当。
- したがって、違反に対する責任は、当該期間中に会社の業務運営を統括し、責任を負っていた者にのみ帰属させることが妥当である。
- 以上のことから、1999年FEMA第8条および前述の規則に対する上訴人の違反が正当に立証された。
- 3,360万ルピーの輸出代金を所定の期間内に回収できず、かつRBIから償却の承認を得られなかったことは、法的義務への違反を構成する。
- 上訴人は9,725,987.51米ドル相当の物品を輸出し、そのうち8,845,230.75米ドルを回収した。対象期間中に回収されなかった輸出代金は880,756.76米ドルであり、これは輸出総額のわずか約9%に過ぎない。
- さらに、同社の取締役は未回収の輸出代金を回収するためにドバイを訪問している。
6. 最終判決
控訴審裁判所は次のように判示した。
- Shri Sham Sundar氏およびShri Praveen Chawla氏は、違反が発生した期間の後に取締役に就任したため、就任前に行われた会社の作為または不作為について責任を負うことはできない。したがって、当該の罰金は取り消される。
- Shri Rajnish Pahwa氏およびShri P. S. Sharma氏は罰金の対象となる。ただし、両名に対する罰金額はそれぞれ25万ルピーに減額される。
7. 結論
FEMA（外国為替管理法）の規定は、国境を越えた取引を行うあらゆる企業にとって不可欠なものです。外国資本の保有や資金調達がないためFEMAの規定は適用されないと思い込んでいる方も多いですが、物品の輸出を行うだけでもFEMAの規定が適用されます。そのため、すべての企業はFEMAコンプライアンスを確保するために専門家の支援を求める必要があります。FEMAへの違反は多額の罰金を招く恐れがあります。V J M GlobalのチームはFEMAコンプライアンスに精通しており、法的な問題を回避できるよう規定の遵守をサポートいたします。
.avif)
