contravened Section 3(a), Section 4 and Section 10(4) of the FEMA, 1999. That the Varanasi branch of RMEL was not eligible for any transaction in foreign exchange is an accepted fact not denied by either party. That the transaction had taken place with M/s. Global Forex & Travels is also not denied. Whether M/.S Global Forex & Travels had a valid license or not is not an issue before me as they are not in appeal before me. Considering that the RBI grants license to the company as well as its branches separately, a fact which was reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant, RMEL, Varanasi cannot take shelter under the main RMEL company located at Mumbai. From the emails as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the consignment was sent from Varanasi. It belies common sense that if the transaction had been undertaken by the Lucknow branch as the appellants have tried to argue at one stage then why should the money/consignment/package be not transferred from Lucknow to Cochin their hub and why carry it to Varanasi and then send it to Cochin. Even the statement of Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, State Head, Uttar Pradesh who reported to the zonal manager confirms that the consignment was transferred from Varanasi directly through Jet Airways via AWB 58979725306 to Cochin. As per Section 3(a) no person who is not authorized by the RBI can deal or transfer any foreign exchange………… In the present case, the Varanasi branch was not authorised for such dealings but nevertheless they undertook the same. Section 10(4) are the duties prescribed for the authorized person which in this case is not relevant as Varanasi branch is not an authorized person. To that extent, the RMEL, Varanasi branch has contravened the provisions of Section 3(a) of FEMA, 1999.
