The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside a 13-year-old
Enforcement Directorate (ED) order that had imposed a penalty of Rs 25.20 crore
on Sterlite
Industries (India) Ltd and its promoter Anil
Agarwal for alleged violation of foreign exchange rules while acquiring Monte
Cello BV, an entity that owned copper mines in Australia.
The transaction between Monte Cello Corporation NV and
Sterlite took place in 2000, involving consideration of Rs 203.82 crore ($43.5
million then).
Later, in June 2008, the Special Director of Enforcement
issued a show-cause notice to the company and its promoter alleging that they
were in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, at the time
of remitting $43.50 million for the acquisition of the two copper mines.
Around the same time, the company filed compounding
applications before the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India (RBI),
which is the Compounding Authority for challenging the notice issued by the ED.
The RBI considered the submissions of the company and passed
five separate compounding orders, directing the company to deposit Rs 25 lakh
and its officers Rs 10 lakh each. The said money was deposited as compounding
charges by the company and its management.
However, in November 2008, the ED passed an order alleging
that the company was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Management Act
(FEMA) provisions and imposed a penalty of Rs 20 crore on the company. Also,
the ED had imposed a penalty of Rs 3 crore on Anil Agarwal, Rs 2 crore on Tarun
Jain, who was Director of Finance at that point in time, and Rs 10 lakh each on
two other officers - Somnath Patil and Lalit Singhvi.
Later, the company challenged the legality and validity of
the ED’s November 2008 order in the Bombay High Court.
In a response to ET’s detailed query about whether the
company will file a caveat in the Supreme Court in case the department chooses
to challenge the ruling, the spokesperson said: “We will consider the same.”
Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond and Nishit Dhruva of MDP
& Partners, while appearing for Sterlite Industries and Agrawal, argued
that proceedings initiated against petitioners by the Special Director of
Enforcement by issuing the show-cause-notice came to an end on the passing of the
compounding orders.
Countering this, Sandesh Patil, counsel for the ED, argued
that the company never informed the ED that they had filed compounding
applications before the designated Compounding Authority.
The division bench of Justice KR Shriram and Justice MN
Jadhav, while setting aside the penalty imposed by the ED, observed in its
order of July 14 that petitioners cannot be faulted and held liable for
contravention once the compounding orders are passed by the Compounding
Authority.
“The Compounding Authority is a statutory authority which is
required to function under the directions of the Governor of the RBI,” said
Ashish K Singh, managing partner of Capstone Legal. “All decisions taken by the
Compounding Authority are considered to be final and binding. This judgment of
the High Court will set a precedent for many cases where even after compounding
has been done, ED has wrongly initiated proceedings.”
……………………..