改正規定においても報告義務が維持されているため、FDI報告の遅延に対して罰金が科される。

判決：

Hon’ble SAFEMA in the matter of 

M/s Shell India Markets Private Limited Vs The Special Director, ED, Banagluru (FPA-FE-43 & 44/BNG/2023)

The Appellant, an Indian Company, received FDI of INR 204 Crores through automatic approval route. The Company was required to file the Advance Remittance Form (ARF) within 30 days of receipt of FDI.  The Company delayed in reporting of FDI to RBI by 24 days. Therefore, the penalty was imposed on the company of INR 20 Crores and on the directors of INR 5 Crores.

The Appellant contended that the RBI initiated online filing of ARF form with effect from 08.02.2016 for the first time and delay occurred due to technical issues faced by the appellant on the portal. Also, penalty is imposed in pursuance of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA. However, such provisions were omitted w.e.f. 15.10.2019, whereas, the penalty proceedings were initiated in 2022. Further, the penalty can be imposed of a maximum amount of INR 2 Lakhs.

The Hon’ble Tribunal held that:

1. Online system was in operation much before making it compulsory w.e.f. 08.02.2016. Thus, the excuse taken by the appellant cannot be accepted to justify the delay. Further, technical delay needs to be substantiated properly.
2. The requirement of reporting was maintained and otherwise the repeal of the Regulation operating in the year 2016 would have no effect in the light of Section 6 and 6A of the General Clauses Act read with Section 24 of the same Act. Regulations framed by RBI remain in operation pursuant to section 47(3) as amended, the Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA held that appellant could not take excuse regarding repeal/omission of provision.
3. The delay is of 24 days but for it the penalty of Rs.20 crores on the Company and Rs.5 crores on the Director is excessive in our opinion. Reasonableness in imposition of penalty needs to be shown. Accordingly, the penalty amount was reduced.

1. 本件の概要

• The Appeal is filed against the Impugned order issued by the Adjudicating Authority imposing a penalty of INR 25 Crores on the Company and Directors for contravention of FEMA on account of delay in reporting of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to the RBI.
• M/s Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. (“The Appellant”) is one of the well-diversified international energy companies in the Oil and Gas sector in India.
• Vide Circular No.77 dated 12.02.2015, RBI initiated online filing of:
  • Advance Remittance Form (ARF) to report FDI inflows; and
  • Foreign Currency Gross Provisional Return (FCGPR) Form to report issue of eligible instruments to the overseas investors.

• The Appellant received the FDI of USD 3,09,00,000(INR 204 Crore) under automatic route, i.e., no prior approval of the RBI or Government of India was required.
• The appellant Company faced issues and difficulties in the online filing system as it was relatively new and this caused a delay of 24 days in reporting FDI remittance.
• The Appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground of unwarranted delay in the reporting occurred.
• The RBI allotted UIN to the Appellant post reporting of the remittance. Therefore, it implied that RBI has condoned the delay.
• After six years, the Bank of the Company received notice from the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, for furnishing records of the appellant company within 6 days.
• The Bank submitted the requested information and details.
• After all hearing, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint against the Appellant alleging violation of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA and Regulation 5(1) of FEMA.
• It was in ignorance of the fact that Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA had already been repealed.
• After Show cause notice and reply, the Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of INR 20 crores on the appellant company and INR.5 crores on the Director.
• Aggrieved by the order, the appellant immediately preferred this appeal.

2. 関連する法的抜粋

Relevant extract of the law is reiterated below for ready reference:

"6. Capital Account transactions.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (2), the Reserve Bank may, by regulations, prohibit, restrict or regulate the following-

..

(b)transfer or issue of any foreign security by a person resident outside India;".

The above mentioned provisions is omitted w.e.f. 15.10.2019. 

"9. Report by the Indian Company

(1) An Indian Company issuing shares or convertible debentures in accordance with these Regulations shall submit through AD Bank to the Regional Office concerned of the Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction the Registered Office of the company operates,  (A) not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the amount of consideration for issue of shares or convertible debentures or warrants, a report in the form specified in Annex. `C' to this schedule along with a copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC), Know Your Customer (KYC) Reporton the non-resident investor and details of the Government approval, if any."

3. Contention of the Appellant

The Appellant contended that:

• The penalty is imposed in reference to Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA. However, such section has been omitted w.e.f. 15.10.2019.
• Further, as per Section 47(3), regulation made by RBI under Section 6 and 47 of FEMA would now vest with the Central Government. However, it shall continue to be valid until amended or rescinded by the Central Government.
• In pursuance of power received under section 47(3) of FEMA, The Central Government notified the regulation called the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Regulations, 2019.
• The regulations were made relating to the mode of payment and reporting requirement for investment in India by a person resident out of India.
• The Penalty was imposed in reference to a provision which was omitted w.e.f. 15.10.2019, whereas, the penalty proceedings were initiated in 2022.
• Further, the fact of technical difficulty faced by the appellant after introduction of the online system was also ignored.
• Condonation of delay was filed with RBI and request was made to issue the UIN. The RBI issued UIN and therefore, the appellant presumed that delay had been condoned by the RBI.
• Further, post such bonafide default, the appellant did not commit any delay in reporting.
• It was at best a case of technical default and in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, the penalty could not have been imposed.
• Also, as per the provisions of FEMA, in the present case, the maximum penalty that could have been imposed is INR 2 lakhs and not INR 25 Crores.
• Once a provision is omitted, the action cannot be taken in reference to such a provision, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Cane sugar Works Ltd & Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors., wherein it was held that a show cause notice after the provision is omitted would not be sustainable.

4. 被申立人の主張

被申立人は以下の通り主張した：

• The appellant has taken an excuse of technical difficulties, however, no material has been submitted to support it.
• The online system was not introduced for the first time on 08.02.2016. Rather, the same was made operative from 12.02.2015 though there was an option to submit ARF manually also.
• The online system was made compulsory w.e.f. 08.02.2016 and there could not be any teething problem as the online system was operational for almost a year prior to making it compulsory.
• The appellant is a reckoned defaulter; it has also committed default in earlier years and an application for compounding was submitted thereupon.
• With respect to the legal aspect, notice was issued in reference to Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA as this section was operational when the appellant committed default.
• With omission of section 6(3)(b), w.e.f. 15.10.2019, a new section 47(3) was also inserted to save the regulation of RBI notified under Section 6 and 47 till rule making power is exercised by the Central Government.
• The regulation framed in reference to capital account transactions by the RBI remains operational.
• If on the pretext of technical default, no penalty is imposed then the excuse of technical default would be taken by every defaulter and thereby nobody would make compliance of the provisions of the Law.

5. Analysis and finding by Hon’ble Appellate Authority

The Hon’ble Appellate Authority made following findings and analysis:

• Para 9(1)(A) of Schedule-I of FEMA requires to report the receipt of the amount of consideration for issue of shares or convertible debentures or warrants within a period of 30 days.

1. Technical Issues:

• 上訴人は、インド準備銀行（RBI）によるオンライン報告システムが2016年2月8日から有効化され、それ以前は手動での報告が必要であったこと、またオンライン報告への移行に際して初期トラブルに直面したと主張した。
• 被上訴人は、オンラインシステム自体は2015年2月12日に導入されており、手動での報告も可能であったことを立証した。
• これは、2016年2月8日の義務化以前からオンラインシステムが運用されていたことを示している。
• したがって、上訴人が主張する初期トラブルを理由とした言い訳は認められない。初期トラブルは、仮に事実であったとしても導入当初に起こり得るものであり、義務化されるまでの1年間運用されていた状況下で、深刻な問題として残るはずがない。
• よって、上訴人の言い訳は遅延を正当化する理由として認められない。
• もし上訴人の主張を認め、罰金を科さないとすれば、FDI（外国直接投資）報告義務の意義が失われてしまう。誰も期限内に報告しなくなり、技術的な遅延を口実に罰金を免れることになりかねない。
• 実際、技術的な遅延については適切に定義される必要がある。

2. インド準備銀行（RBI）による遅延の免除

• 上訴人は、RBIに対して遅延の免除およびUIN（固有識別番号）の発行を求める申請を行った。
• RBIは遅延の問題を取り扱う機関ではない。UINは報告が遅延した場合でも発行可能である。
• したがって、RBIに送付された書簡によって遅延が正当化されることはない。さらに、上訴人によるFDI報告の遅延は今回が初めてではなく、過去にも複数回発生している。

3. FEMA第6条(3)(b)の削除および2017年規則の導入：

• FEMA第6条(3)(b)は2019年10月15日付で削除されたが、その削除が及ぼす影響については、一般条項法第6条、第6A条および第24条に照らして検討する必要がある。
• 規則に関しては、中央政府によって策定されたものではなく、FEMA第47条(3)に基づき、RBIが策定した規則が引き続き有効である。
• このような規定が継続している以上、上訴人は一般条項法第6条および第6A条と第24条を併せて読み解くことで、規定の廃止・削除を理由とした言い訳はできない。
• この問題は、Fibre Boards Pvt. Ltd.事件（前述）の判決によって完全に網羅されており、同判決では以下のように判示されている：
  • 当該規則は、インド国外居住者によるインドへの投資を規制するために導入されたものである。
  • その後、中央政府は2019年外国為替管理（非負債性金融商品）規則を公布した。これは、2017年外国為替管理（インド国外居住者による証券の譲渡および発行）規則に代わるものである。
  • 報告義務は同規則においても維持されており、いずれにせよ、一般条項法第6条および第6A条と第24条を併せて読み解けば、2016年に運用されていた規則の廃止は影響を及ぼさない。

4. 罰金の額

• 裁定当局は、FDI報告の遅延に対し、会社に20億ルピー、取締役に5億ルピーの罰金を科した。
• これは規定違反である以上、単なる技術的な不備の問題ではない。しかし、たとえ法および規則の規定に基づく違反であったとしても、罰金の賦課は常に妥当な範囲内であるべきである。
• 罰金は、何らかの損失が発生した場合にのみ評価されるものではない。なぜなら金額の決定は損失の有無に依存しないからである。
• むしろ、損失が生じた場合には損害賠償の問題となる。前述の判断の結論として、損害賠償は相手方の行為によって生じた損失の評価を必要とするが、罰金にはそのような要件は存在しない。
• 遅延は24日間であるが、それに対して会社に20億ルピー、取締役に5億ルピーの罰金を科すことは過大であると我々は考える。
• 罰金の賦課には妥当性が示される必要があり、したがって我々は罰金の額に介入し、会社に対する罰金を2億ルピー、取締役に対する罰金を50万ルピーに減額する。

6. Order

名誉ある審判所は罰金条項を差し替えた。ただし、裁定当局が扱った法的および事実上の問題に関する異議申し立て対象の命令は維持される。