{"id":61193,"date":"2025-02-01T02:00:41","date_gmt":"2025-02-01T02:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/accounting\/penalty-for-non-realisation-of-export-proceeds-cant-be-imposed-on-the-export-agent\/"},"modified":"2025-02-01T02:00:41","modified_gmt":"2025-02-01T02:00:41","slug":"penalty-for-non-realisation-of-export-proceeds-cant-be-imposed-on-the-export-agent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=61193","title":{"rendered":"Penalty For Non-Realisation Of Export Proceeds Can\u2019t Be Imposed On The Export Agent"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

Held by Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the matter of\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sh. Darshan Hasmukh Shah Vs The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai<\/strong><\/p>\n

M\/s Sparkle Gems Industries Private Limited (\u201cThe Company\u201d) made an export of diamonds to Hong Kong in the year 1989. However, the company failed to release the export proceeds. Accordingly, a penalty of INR 85 Lakhs was imposed on the Company, and INR 50 Lakhs<\/strong> was imposed on the Appellant. The Appellant contended that he was not an exporter and did not hold any position in the Company. The appellant was only an export proceeds agent in the Diamond market and was involved in the preparation of export-related documents for consideration. The penalty is imposed on the appellant Ignoring his position.<\/p>\n

The Hon\u2019ble Appellate Tribunal held that the Company has failed to recover the export dues within the stipulated period of 6 months. However, the appellant is an export proceeds agent in the Diamond market. He cannot be said to be a part of the company defaulted in recovery of the proceeds of export. The respondents have failed to show the appellant\u201f \u2018s involvement in contravention of Section 18(2) and (3)<\/strong> of the Act<\/strong>. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n

1. Brief Facts of the case<\/h2>\n