Dismissed

Naresh Mehra v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2009FERA/11/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this FERA appeal, upholding the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant aided and abetted the import of outdated books through non-existent firms using over-invoiced remittances, violating foreign exchange regulations.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by Naresh Thakurdas Mehra was dismissed, confirming the order of dismissal by the Appellate Tribunal, Foreign Exchange dated 23.10.2008.

2. The appellant was charged for contravention of the provisions of Section 8(3) read with Section 64(2) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The charge was that one Kamlesh Shah arranged to import consignments of outdated books in the name of Kamlesh Shah Enterprises and various other firms, including M/s. Kwality Book distributors, M/s. Vishal International, and M/s. Heena Book Stall which were highly over-invoiced. It was found that the firms were in fact non-existent. Shri Kamlesh Shah remitted huge amounts of foreign exchange to U.K. against the import of such books from B.M.Patel, the Proprietor of M/s. Transworld Book Ltd. London into India during the period 1998-99. The appellant was aiding and abetting Kamlesh Shah and the proprietor of the firms for contravention of the provisions of FERA being Section 8(3) read with Section 64(2) to the extent of $ 5,20,840.92.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant herein raised various contentions. One of the contentions raised is that the bifurcation of the amounts were not made. The learned Tribunal noted that in the show cause notice itself, the amount of Pounds 5,20,840.92 has been mentioned and the names of the firms and the amount of remittance. It was also contended that the charge was vague. The Tribunal held that it was open to the

appellant herein to show that prejudice has been occasioned. On account of that fact no prejudice had been occasioned and the Tribunal rejected the said contention. Even otherwise the Tribunal had held that the charge was not vague.

4. Insofar as the merits of the matter is concerned, it has come on record that Shri S.C.Joshi, proprietor of Vishal International also admitted in his statement that he started the firm at the instance of one Kamlesh Shah. Shri Joshi received 2% of the invoice. Kamlesh Shah in his statement dated 24.11.1990 admitted that bank account was opened by him and funds were remitted in respect of those consignments. In the statement of Shri Nilesh Kesaria, he had admitted that there was no office name by Kwality Book Distributors and it was opened by him for import of books.

. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the appellant in his statement dated 18.12.1990 admitted that he had introduced the bank accounts of M/s. Vishal International, Darshna International, M/s. Heena Book Stall and M/s Rajshree International and 3 other firms. It may be noted that insofar as Vishal International Bombay is concerned the statement of Shri S.C.Joshi is on record, that he started the firm under the name and

style of Kamlesh Shah Enterprises. Similarly, insofar as the Heena Book Stall is concerned, the statement of A.G.Bhatt, proprietor and who was one of the noticees of the firm admitted in his statement that 16 consignments of books were imported from M/s. Transworld Books Ltd. by Kamlesh Shah and the remittances were made with the assistance of Naresh Mehra by A.G.Bhatt. Naresh Mehta is the appellant herein. In his statement also the appellant herein had admitted that Kamlsh Shah used to give him amounts in cash and he used to give cheques in the name of M/s. Kwality Book Distributors, M/s. Heena Book Stall and M/s. Vishal International from the bank accounts of his firm i.e. M/s. Sunshine Magazines.

5. All the evidence has been considered by the Tribunal which has recorded a finding and come to the conclusion that the assistance given by the appellant to Kamlsh Shah and his firms in opening various accounts and operation of the accounts in association with the appellant with Kamlesh Shah and others would prove the charge of abetment against the appellant. These are findings of fact. No perversity has ben shown insofar as the said points are concerned.

Naresh Mehra v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Mehra v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. R. Parekh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahendra and Co. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

R.Piyarelal Import and Export (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

India Glycols Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Siroya and Associates Vs Union of India and Anr.

B. Venkatesh Pai Vs the Union of India and Anr.