Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. Vs Special Director of Enforcement

Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 680 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) No.7655 OF 2011)

Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. ….Appellant

VERSUS

Special Director of Enforcement .…Respondent

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 681 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) No.7657 OF 2011)

Peter Kerkar ….Appellant

VERSUS

Special Director of Enforcement .…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In these two appeals, the challenge is to a common

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 1 of 23

Page 2

Judicature at Bombay in FEMA Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2008,

dated 14th October 2010.

3. Brief Facts which led to the culmination of the present

appeals are required to be stated. The Appellant in SLP

No.7655 of 2011 is the company and the Appellant in SLP

No.7657 of 2011 was also proceeded against as the

Executive Director of the company. The Respondent

issued a show cause notice against the Appellants dated

29th April 2002, wherein it was alleged that the Appellant

in SLP No.7655 of 2011 sold foreign currency to the value

of 1,47,000 US$ and 1000 Sterling £ of UK between

29.4.1997 to 5.6.1997 through unauthorized persons

deputed by M/s Hotel Zam Zam in violation of Sections

6(4), 6(5), 7 & 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,

1973 (hereinafter called “FERA”) as well as paragraph 3 of

the Memorandum of FLM issued by RBI. The Appellants

were called upon to show-cause why penalty should not

be imposed against them under Section 50 of FERA read

with Section 49 (3) & (4) of Foreign Exchange

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 2 of 23

Page 3

Management Act (hereinafter called “FEMA”).

Subsequently, by order dated 28.10.2004 the Respondent

imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- each on both the

Appellants. The Appellants preferred appeals before the

Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange in Appeal

Nos.1259 and 1260 of 2004, which were also dismissed by

order dated 2.7.2008. The above said orders of the

Original Authority, as well as the Appellate Authority, were

the subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench

of the High Court in FEMA Appeal Nos.3 & 4 of 2008. The

Division Bench having confirmed the orders of the lower

authority, as well as the tribunal, the Appellants have

come forward with these appeals.

4. We heard Mr. H.N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate for the

Appellants and Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned Addl. Solicitor

General for the Respondent. We also perused the written

submissions filed on behalf of the appellant as well as the

respondent. We also perused the order of the Original

Authority, the Tribunal, as well as the Division Bench and

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 3 of 23

Page 4

having heard the counsel for the respective parties we

proceed to decide these appeals.

5. Mr. Salve, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of

the Appellants in his submissions mainly contended that

there was no violation at all in the matter of Sale and

Purchase by the Appellant company to M/s Hotel Zam

Zam in relation to the sale of 1,47,000 US$, as well as

1000 Sterling £ of UK in between 29.4.1997 and 5.6.1997,

inasmuch as both the Appellant company, as well as M/s

Hotel Zam Zam are duly licensed Full Fledged Money

Changers, in short FFMC. According to the learned senior

counsel, such transactions as between the licensed FFMCs

are wholly authorized under the provisions of FERA, as

well as the Memorandum of FLM of the Reserve Bank of

India. The learned senior counsel further contended that

in the confiscation proceedings initiated against the

Appellants, as well as M/s Hotel Zam Zam, as per the

order dated 21.8.1998 it was found that no statutory

violation can be attributed to the Appellants and

therefore, the imposition of penalty as against the

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 4 of 23

Page 5

Appellants by the Original Authority and the confirmation

of the same by the Tribunal and the Division Bench are

therefore liable to be set aside.

6. As against the above submissions, Mr. Bagaria, learned

Addl. Solicitor General would contend that by virtue of the

statutory stipulations contained in sub-sections (4) and (5)

of Section 6, Section 7 and 8 of FERA read along with

paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of FLM of the RBI, there

was a clear violation of the statutory provisions committed

by the Appellants, hence the penalty imposed by the

Original Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority,

as well as the High Court cannot be faulted. It was also

submitted that the Original Authority, the Appellate

Tribunal and the High Court have reached a concurrent

finding based on documents, materials, as well as

statements on record and the said conclusions are not

perverse and therefore, the same do not call for

interference. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in

Collector of Customs vs. Swastic Woollens Pvt. Ltd.

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 5 of 23

Page 6

- 1988 (Supp) SCC 796, Commissioner of Central

Excise vs. Charminar Non-Wovens Ltd. – (2009) 10

SCC 770 and Ghisalal vs. Dhapubai (dead) by LRs &

Ors. – (2011) 2 SCC 298. It was also contended that

Hotel Zam Zam purchased the foreign exchange from the

appellant at a higher rate than the exchange rate fixed by

the RBI and on this ground as well the proceedings

initiated against the appellant and the imposition of

penalty was justified. To support the said contention,

reliance was placed upon the decision in P.V.

Mohammad Barmay Sons vs. Director of

Enforcement – 1992 (61) ELT 337.

7. When we consider the submissions of the respective

counsel we find Sections 6(4), 6(5), 8(2) of FERA and Para

3 and 9 of the Memorandum of FLM of RBI, are required to

be noted which are as under:

“Section 6 Authorised dealers in foreign exchange:-

6(4) An authorized dealer shall, in all his dealings in foreign exchange and in the exercise and discharge of the powers and of the functions

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 6 of 23

Page 7

delegated to him under Section 74, comply with such general or special directions or instructions as the Reserve Bank may, from time to time, think fit to give, and except with the previous permission of the Reserve Bank, an authorized dealer shall not engage in any transaction involving any foreign exchange which is not in conformity with the terms of his authorization under this section.

6(5) An authorized dealer shall, before undertaking any transaction in foreign exchange on behalf of any person, require that person to make such declaration and to give such information as will reasonably satisfy him that the transaction will not involve, and is not designed for the purpose of, any contravention or evasion of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, notification, direction or order made thereunder, and where the said person refuses to comply with any such requirement or makes only unsatisfactory compliance therewith, the authorized dealer shall refuse to undertake the transaction and shall, if he has reason to believe that any such contravention or evasion as aforesaid is contemplated by the person report the matter to the Reserve Bank.

Section 8: Restrictions on dealings in foreign exchange:-

(2) Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person, whether an authorized dealer or a money-changer or otherwise, shall enter into any transaction which provides for the conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency or foreign currency into Indian currency at rates of exchange other

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 7 of 23

Page 8

than the rates for the time being authorized by the Reserve Bank.

Paragraphs 3 and 9 of the FLM

Authorised Officials 3. All money-changers should arrange to forward

lists giving full names and designations of their representatives who are authorized to buy and sell foreign currency notes, coins and travelers cheques on their behalf together with their specimen signatures, at the end of each calendar year to the office of Reserve Bank under whose jurisdiction they are functioning. Any changes in their list should also be brought to the notice of Reserve Bank. No person other than the authorized representative should be allowed to transact money-changing business on behalf of the money-changer

Purchases from other Money-changers and Authorized Dealers:- 9. Money-changers may freely purchase from

other money-changers and authorized dealers in foreign exchange or their exchange bureau, any foreign currency notes and coins tendered by the letter. Rupee equivalent of the amount of foreign currency purchased should, however, be paid by way of a cross cheque drawn on their bank account or if made by way of a bankers’ cheque/pay order/demand draft, it should be accompanied by a certificate from the bank issuing the relative instrument certifying that the funds for the instrument have been received by it by debit to the applicants bank account. In no circumstances should payments in respect of such sale be made in cash.”

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 8 of 23

Page 9

8. Under Section 6(4) it is stipulated that a full fledged

money changer (FFMC) as an authorized dealer in foreign

exchange should strictly comply with the general or

special directions or instructions that may be issued by

the RBI and that except with the previous permission of

the RBI, authorized dealers should not engage in any

transaction involved in any foreign exchange, which is not

in conformity with the terms of his authorization. Under

Section 6(5) it is stipulated that an authorized dealer

should before undertaking any transaction in foreign

exchange should ensure verification on certain aspects in

order to ensure that there is no contravention of the

provisions of FERA and if the FFMC has any reason to

believe that any such contravention or evasion is

contemplated by a person who seeks to indulge in any

transaction in foreign exchange, the FFMC should report

the matter to the RBI.

9. Section 8 of FERA imposes restrictions on dealings in

foreign exchange. The said provision imposes restriction

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 9 of 23

Page 10

to the effect that no person other than the authorized

dealer in India, shall purchase or otherwise acquire or

borrow any foreign exchange. Under sub section 2, it is

stipulated that except with the previous general or special

permission of RBI, an authorized dealer or a money

changer should enter into any transaction providing

conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency or vice

versa, at rates of exchange other than the rates for the

time-being authorized by RBI.

10. De hors the above provisions, the other relevant

provisions are paragraphs 3 & 9 of the Memorandum of

FLM issued by the RBI. A close scrutiny of paragraph 3

disclose that the said paragraph has been issued by the

RBI to state as to who can be called as ‘authorized

officials’ of money changers. The said paragraph also

imposes a restriction to the effect that other than an

authorized representative, nobody else should be allowed

to transact money changing business on behalf of the

money changer.

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 10 of 23

Page 11

11. Paragraph 9 virtually gives a free hand for the money

changers to indulge in purchase of foreign currency etc.,

and the only restriction is that while making such

purchase, the purchase value should be paid only by way

of an instrument and not by way of cash.

12. Keeping the above provisions in mind, when we refer

to the nature of transaction that had taken place as

between the Appellants and M/s Hotel Zam Zam, the

following facts are not

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 11 of 23

Page 12

in controversy:

(a) The Appellants, as well as M/s Hotel Zam Zam, are licensed FFMC.

(b) The Appellants sold foreign exchange of 1,47,000 US $ and 1,000/- sterling £ of UK as between April 1997 to June 1997 to M/s Hotel Zam Zam.

(c) The purchase value of the above foreign currency was at a higher rate than the existing retail rate that prevailed in the market.

(d) The purchase value was paid by M/s Hotel Zam Zam by way of Pay Orders.

(e) Prior to the transaction, at the instance of the Appellants, a Xerox copy of the RBI license of M/s Hotel Zam Zam was produced and based on which the transaction was effected.

(f) The transactions were effected on 29.04.1997, 06.05.1997, 29.05.1997 and 05.06.1997 and the amounts transacted were 7,000 US$, 1000 Sterling £ of UK, 40,000 US$ and 1,00,000 US$ on the respective dates. In all 1,47,000 US$ and 1000 Sterling £ of UK were sold by the Appellants to M/s Hotel Zam Zam.

(g) All the above transactions were made and the foreign currency was handed over to Shri

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 12 of 23

Page 13

Rakesh Mahatre, a representative of M/s Hotel Zam Zam.

13. Based on the above undisputed facts relating to the

transaction as between the Appellants and M/s Hotel Zam

Zam, the Original Authority reached a conclusion that the

Appellants failed to verify the authorization in favour of

the persons concerned to buy/sell foreign exchange on

behalf of the said money changers as contemplated under

the relevant provisions. In other words, it was concluded

that it was incumbent upon the Appellants by virtue of the

terms of instructions contained in paragraph 3 of the

Memorandum of FLM issued by RBI to have verified the

bonafides of the persons deputed to them by M/s Hotel

Zam Zam before handing over the foreign currencies to

such persons. It was, therefore, ultimately concluded that

the said failure on the part of the Appellants resulted in

contravention of the directions contained in paragraph 3

of the Memorandum of FLM read with Section 6(4), 6(5)

and 7 of FERA. Ultimately the Appellants were found guilty

for the said contraventions and the penalty came to be

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 13 of 23

Page 14

imposed. The said order of the Original Authority was

confirmed by the Tribunal, as well as the Division Bench of

the High Court.

14. The above impugned orders disclose that the only

violation or contravention related to the stipulations

contained in paragraph 3 read with Section 6(4) and 6(5)

of FERA. It will be relevant to note that the variation in the

rates of purchase value of the foreign currency was not

the basis for the ultimate conclusion about the

contravention held against the Appellants. Therefore,

keeping aside the said aspect, when we examine the

contravention held proved against the Appellants, we feel

it appropriate to make a reference to paragraph 9 in the

forefront. Under paragraph 9 of the FLM as between the

money changers, a free hand has been given for purchase

and sale of any foreign currency notes etc. in rupee value.

The only restriction imposed therein is that the Indian

rupee value of the foreign currency should not be paid by

way of cash, but should always be paid in the form of an

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 14 of 23

Page 15

instrument such as banker’s cheque/pay-order/demand

draft etc., or by debiting to the purchasers’ bank account.

Therefore, if under paragraph 9 such a free hand has been

given to the money changers, namely, FFMCs in the

matter of purchase of foreign currency etc., by making

payments in the form of negotiable instruments under the

relevant statutes, the question that would arise for

consideration would be whether in a case of this nature

where such a transaction had taken place in between two

licensed FFMCs and the said transaction was carried on by

exchange of foreign currency by way of payment in the

form of pay-orders and that the sale effected by the

Appellants and the purchase made by the other FFMC,

namely, M/s Hotel Zam Zam was not disputed, can it still

be held that there was any violation at all in order to

proceed against the Appellants for imposing a penalty?

When we examine the said issue, we are unable to accede

or countenance the stand of the Respondent that the

foreign currencies to the values mentioned in the earlier

paragraphs were handed over to the representative of M/s

Civil Appeal No………. of 2014 @ SLP© No. 7655 of 2011 Page 15 of 23

Page 16

Hotel Zam Zam by one Mr. Rakesh Mahatre and,

therefore, the whole transaction was in contravention of

Sections 6(4) and 6(5) of FERA and paragraph 3 of FLM.

15. When we examine paragraph 3 of FLM, we find that

the caption of the said paragraph is “Authorized Officials”.

The purport of the said paragraph was to ensure that any

licensed money changers should allow transaction of its

money changing business in its premises only through

such persons who are the listed authorized officials as

certified by the office of the Reserve Bank under whose

jurisdiction such money changers operate their business.

The last part of paragraph 3 makes the position a little

more clear which states that “no person other than the

authorized representative should be allowed to transact

money-changing business on behalf of the money-

changer”. Apparently when a money changer operates its

business from its premises, any transaction by way of sale

or purchase as part of its money changing business should

be carried out only through an authorized representative.

Page 17

16. When we extend the application of the said stipulation

to the case of present nature, it can only be said that if

such transaction had taken place as between the

Appellants and the purchaser M/s Hotel Zam Zam, it

should have been carried on only through their respective

authorized representatives. The statement of Mr. Peter

Kerkar, the Appellant in SLP (C) No.7657 of 2011, disclose

that on each occasion the transaction was negotiated by

the Branch Manager of the Appellant with one Ms. Pinky of

M/s Hotel Zam Zam. It is not the case of the Respondent

that neither of these two persons who indulged in the

transaction of money changing business were not the

authorized officials of their respective establishments. If

the said factum relating to the business transactions,

which had taken place as between the Appellants and M/s

Hotel Zam Zam is not in controversy, we fail to see how a

violation of paragraph 3 can be alleged as against the

Appellants.

Page 18

17. It is stated that after the transaction as between the

Appellants and M/s Hotel Zam Zam concluded, M/s Hotel

Zam Zam stated to have indulged in some transaction,

which was in violation of the provisions of FERA with which

the Appellants were not in any way concerned. It can also

be safely held that for any violation or contravention of

the provisions of FERA or FEMA at the instance of M/s

Hotel Zam Zam after the money changing transaction as

between the Appellants and the said concern had come to

an end, the Appellants cannot in any way be held

responsible or proceeded against.

18. In our considered opinion that in the peculiar facts of

this case and having regard to the nature of transactions

which had taken place as between the Appellants and M/s

Hotel Zam Zam in the manner in which it has been

narrated in the impugned order of the Original Authority

as noted by the Tribunal, as well as the Division Bench of

the High Court, we are convinced that there was no scope

to allege a violation of paragraph 3 of the FLM or for that

Page 19

matter Sections 6(4) and 6(5) of FERA, 1973. Based on the

interpretation of Sections 6(4), 6(5) of FERA, 1973 and

paragraphs 3 & 9 of the FLM, we have held that the

Original Authority, the Appellate Tribunal as well as the

Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate the

issue in the proper perspective while holding the appellant

guilty of the violation alleged. Therefore, none of the

judgments relied upon by the respondents for the

proposition that concurrent findings of fact should not be

interfered with does not apply to the facts of this case.

19. Once we steer clear of the above position, we come to

the question of the higher value at which the foreign

currency was alleged to have been sold by the Appellants

to M/s Hotel Zam Zam. As pointed out by us earlier, the

said act was not the basis for the contravention and

imposition of the penalty as against the Appellants. To

rule out any controversy, the conclusion of the Original

Authority as recorded in its order for finding the

Appellants guilty of paragraph 3 of the FLM read with

Page 20

Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA, can be usefully

extracted which reads as under:

“…….Thus by not insisting on the authorization from the said Hotel Zam Zam disclosing the names, address and other particulars of the persons deputed by them for purchasing foreign exchange from M/s Cox and Kings Travel & Finance Ltd., the said M/s Cox and Kings Travel & Finance Ltd. has contravened the directions contained in para 3 of the Memorandum FLM R/w SEC. 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of the FERA, 1973. I, therefore hold them guilty for the said contraventions.”

20. This apart, when we refer to the confiscation order

passed by the Commissioner of Customs in its order dated

21.08.1998, it has been specifically stated as under:

“The statements of Mr. Chitrang Mehta, Manager of M/s LKP dated 06/7-08-97 indicated that there is transaction at prices higher than those prevailing market rates. However, it is also a known fact that the rates for the foreign exchange can be fluctuating and there is hardly any transaction effected at the rates which are recorded for that day to be prevailing in the market not only for the

Page 21

foreign currency but also for to be other goods e.g. shares in the stock market or the metals and other commodities being traded in the specific markets. It is also to be considered that large transactions were being entered into by them and profit made on the sales of such large transactions would not ipso facto induce me to conclude that the mere fact of sales at higher prices would be a preconcerted knowledge that the dollars sold are to be smuggled out of India. I find that the price at which Ms. Pinky Jaisinghani was purchasing the dollars from other FFMCs were settled between her mentor Shri Suleman Tajuddin Patel and not considerations of any other kind.”

21. Therefore, in the impugned orders of the Original

Authority, as well as the Tribunal and the Division Bench,

the sale effected by the Appellants on a rate higher than

the rate prevailing in the market was not the basis for the

alleged violation of paragraph 3 of the FLM read with

Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA. In the confiscation order

passed by the Customs Authorities, where again the

Appellants were also one of the noticees, no fault was

found as against the Appellants on that ground. In the

Page 22

light of our above conclusions, as regards the higher value

at which foreign currency alleged to have been sold by

the appellant to Hotel Zam Zam, the reliance placed upon

the decision in P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons (supra)

has also no application. The said decision came to be

rendered entirely under different facts which cannot be

applied to the facts of the present case.

22. Having reached the above conclusions, we are

convinced that the impugned orders by which the

Appellants were found guilty of the violation of paragraph

3 of FLM read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 7 of FERA and

the consequential imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- was

wholly unjustified. The impugned orders are liable to be

set aside and they are accordingly set aside. If the

Appellants have parted with the penalty amount imposed

under the impugned orders, the Respondent is directed to

refund the same to the Appellants along with simple

interest at the rate of 6% per annum, within two months

Page 23

from the date of this judgment. The appeals are allowed

with the above directions.

…..……….…………………………...J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

……………. ………………………………J.

[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]

New Delhi; January 16, 2014