Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Show Cause Notice Under FEMA for Alleged Violation of Section 6(3)(b) and Regulation 3(1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000. Court held that the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period of 16 years under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA and that the acquisition of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company does not require prior approval under the regulations.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 10
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and its directors, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 19th February 2009 issued by the Special Director of Enforcement under Section 6(3)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and Regulation 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000. The notice alleged that the petitioners had violated the said provisions by remitting Rs.203.82 crore (US$43.5 million) to acquire 100% equity stake of Monte Cello B.V., Netherlands without prior approval from the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioners contended that the acquisition was of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company, which does not require prior approval under the regulations, and that the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period of 16 years under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA. The court analyzed the provisions of FEMA and the regulations and held that the acquisition of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company is not covered under Regulation 3(1) and does not require prior approval. The court further held that the show cause notice was barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period of 16 years from the date of the alleged contravention. The court quashed the show cause notice and allowed the writ petition.

Headnote

A) Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Limitation - Section 6(3)(b) - Show Cause Notice - The show cause notice issued under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA was held to be barred by limitation as it was issued beyond the period of 16 years from the date of the alleged contravention. The court held that the limitation period under Section 6(3)(b) is mandatory and cannot be extended. (Paras 1-23)

B) Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Acquisition of Shares - Regulation 3(1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 - The acquisition of 100% equity stake of Monte Cello B.V., Netherlands by Sterlite Industries (India) Limited did not require prior approval under Regulation 3(1) as the acquisition was of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company, which is not covered under the said regulation. (Paras 1-23)

C) Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Show Cause Notice - Limitation - The court held that the show cause notice issued under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA was barred by limitation and quashed the same. (Paras 1-23)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA and Regulation 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 was barred by limitation and whether the acquisition of 100% equity stake of Monte Cello B.V., Netherlands by Sterlite Industries (India) Limited required prior approval under the said regulations.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the show cause notice dated 19th February 2009.

Law Points

  • Limitation period for issuance of show cause notice under FEMA
  • Interpretation of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA
  • Regulation 3(1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations
  • 2000
  • Acquisition of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company
  • Prior approval requirement for acquisition of shares of a foreign company
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 39

WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2009

2022-07-14

K. R. SHRIRAM, MILIND N. JADHAV

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Thipsay, Mr. Nishit Dhruva, Mr. Prakash Shinde, Ms. Niyati Merchant, Mr. Yash Dhruva and Mr. Harsh Sheth, Advocates i/by MDP and Partners for the Petitioners; Mr. Sandesh Patil, Advocate for the Respondents.

Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, Anil Agarwal, Tarun Jain, Somnath Patil, Lalit Singhvi

Special Director of Enforcement, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Director of Enforcement, Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under FEMA

Remedy Sought

Quashing of show cause notice dated 19th February 2009

Filing Reason

The show cause notice alleged violation of Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA and Regulation 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 for remitting Rs.203.82 crore to acquire 100% equity stake of Monte Cello B.V., Netherlands without prior approval.

Issues

Whether the show cause notice issued under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA and Regulation 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 was barred by limitation. Whether the acquisition of 100% equity stake of Monte Cello B.V., Netherlands by Sterlite Industries (India) Limited required prior approval under the said regulations.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the acquisition of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company does not require prior approval under Regulation 3(1) and that the show cause notice was issued beyond the limitation period of 16 years under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA. Respondents argued that the show cause notice was valid and within limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The acquisition of shares of a foreign company by a resident Indian company is not covered under Regulation 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000 and does not require prior approval. The show cause notice under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA is barred by limitation if issued beyond the period of 16 years from the date of the alleged contravention.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner No.1 is a public limited company engaged in the business of import of copper concentrate from abroad and after processing manufactures various products of copper, i.e., copper cathodes, rods, wires, transmission cables etc. out of the same. Petitioner No.1 effected a foreign remittance of Rs.203.82 crore, i.e., US$43.5 million through Centurion Bank towards acquisition of 100% equity stake of Monte Cello B.V., Netherlands from its holding company Monte Cello.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition in 2009 challenging a show cause notice dated 19th February 2009 issued by the Special Director of Enforcement under Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA and Regulation 3(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 14th July 2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999: Section 6(3)(b)
  • Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000: Regulation 3(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Upholds Reinstatement of CRPF Constable in Termination Case — Termination Order Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice. Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 Termination Quashed as No Opportu...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Writ Appeal Against No-Confidence Motion in Gram Panchayat — Upholds Single Judge Order Refusing to Interfere with Motion Proceedings Under Section 49 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The court...