Memo no. GM/CB/RBI/01 dt. 16.05.16.

To
The Complaint Board,
Reserve Bank of India,
India. www.complaintboard.com

Sub: Prayer regarding unlawful transaction made by RBI-appointed AD of FE with our FE amounting to US$ 33,400/-, remitted for importing salt to Bangladesh in 1977, by committing profoundly huge law violations keeping not a single relevant rule without violation, where host of criminal-natured offences were included, up to blockade thereof in violation of ECM rule 7B.9(i) whereby re-remittance of unused FE was made a MUST and that was happened/is happening under nakedly open but firm protection of ECDs, RBI, Kolkata and Mumbai, to ill-doers and ill-extended resistance against re-remittance of our FE by going even up to falsification like unusual deeds, insubordination defying/side-tracking Enquiry report of the Head of Kolkata Branch (1982) unveiling all the nefariously committed misdeeds of AD.
Sirs,
1. That at the outset, we like to humbly state that our grievances are too old to be existed till date, when was scheduled to be settled at least by 1979, if RBI’s ECM rule 7B.9(i) was abided by the RBI-appointed AD of FE and statutory duty and responsibility was righteously discharged by ECDs, RBI, especially Kolkata. Because the said ECM rule made re-remittance of unused FE remitted for trade to remitter a MUST. For doing so, even the application from depositor was not kept necessary there. But we have been experiencing odds from both the offices. We also like to state that we are lucky enough to get your sight only by yesterday. That is a ray of great hope in the state of lawlessness and we firmly hope to get end justice now.

2. That our prayer is for kind action as per nothing but what is said in Indian law as there is no loophole kept whatsoever therein when we are woefully observing reverse actions by both, the AD & ECD, RBI, Kolkata.

3. That to state in a nutshell, we handed over US$ 33,400/- to M/s. A.K. Banerjee, 3C, Madan Street, Kolkata-73, (now closed), under 5(five) FDDs for importing salt to Bangladesh, under written contact the “the drafts will never be encashed before shipment of complete goods”. But later on we found that whatsoever was written in contact paper or not, FE of FDD was ought to be treated as lending to AD as per Sec 8(1) of FERA, 1973. That was to be followed in making transaction of FE under ECM rules of Chapter 6 & 7. But not a single rule was abided by the said AD in making transaction with our FE of FDD.

4. That the said exporter deposited our above mentioned FE to the then United industrial bank Ltd., 1, Red Cross Road, Kolkata-1, now merged with Allahabad bank, 2, Netaji Shubash Road, Kolkata-1.


5. That the said AD issued Certificate of Foreign Inward Remittance(CFIR), prescribed by RBI as BCI form under ECM rule 6A.6(A), no. 3, 4, 5, 26 & 27, & took the transaction automatically then under the purview of “Forward Purchase Contact”, thus, under rules of Chapter 6 & 7 of RBI’s ECM as that was the norm.

6. That the said AD’s very start of AD’s FE business was with clear aim at defrauding FE as observable through their documents. The burning instance was manipulated printing of CFIR by creating loophole for misappropriation of FE of FDDs as documentarily evident. Therein “*”-mark on “has/has not” in certificate of payment column, and “*-strikeout whichever is in applicable” were omitted from the base thereof. Those created loopholes were used later on keeping both the term “has/has not” in tact i.e. without sticking out making certification vague and void, though instructed by RBI, AD’s appointing authority. That above lone desperately committed law violating/evading action, criminal-natured too, made that form vague and void, thus, unlawful; so were the all transactions made through that form.
7. That for getting details of our fact, our prayer to Regional Director, Dept. of Communication, RBI, New Delhi, vide memo no. GM/AKB/UIB/AB/1030 dt 10.04.16. & other so, may kindly be procured ([email protected]). Or Mr. N. K. Karalkar, AM, FED, RBI, Mumbai, ([email protected]) may be asked for those ([email protected]). We may also kindly be instructed to supply all the documents.
Page 01 of 03.

8. That the next law evasion was of ECM rule 6A.6(a), committed through issuance of CFIR no. 26 & 27 on 21.6.77., and no.6 & 7 on 05.07.77., meaning serial anomaly but proving that our FDDs were ever-first receipt by both the exporters and the said AD. For no.26 & 27 were actually for no. 1 & 2 as per norm.

9. That there were as many as over a dozen of law violations in AD’s each CFIR. Some of those were making untrue declaration, suppression of known fact regarding receipt of contact paper (when receiving that was made a MUST under ECM rules 7A.2 & 7.), omission of item of export- salt), declaring FDD payment as advance evading Sec. 8(1) of FERA,1973 with ECM rule 7A.2, 7A.7 and 7A.8. Vital violation was issuing CFIR by single person avoiding countersignature in violation of ECM rule 6A.6(d) & issuing CFIR in place of receiving bank violating 6A.6(b) and where certification was asked to be made by “We” but issued by “I”, a clearly committed criminal-natured offence.

10. The said AD claimed ready encashment of our FE of FDDs against certification of exporters declaring receipt of FE as advance against export of salt by issuing CFIR violating law in way as mentioned below.

11. That FDD was not a negotiable instrument for ready encashment/advance payment and CFIR under which FDD was ear-marked to be transacted, was not for ready encashment/advance payment. For kind note, RBI prescribed form ECF for encashment of FE received only by “notes/coins/traveler’s cheque”. FDD was not even included there, far would remain the question of its ready encashment. That claim was shear violation of Sec. 8(1) of FERA, 1973, which treated that as lending with AD, not and never, as advance, and was, as if, serving “Soner pathor batite Kanthaler aam sootto poribeshona”, two Bengali proverbs meaning serving mango pickles prepared of jackfruit juice in stone bawl made of gold, as absurd propositions.

12. That though the said AD stated to receive those as “advance” (!) for salt export, they cunningly avoided mentioning the item of export, “salt”, in CFIR. For only that mentioning was enough to restrict claim of ready encashment as salt was a canalized item of STC and FE was to go to STC keeping only the profit margin, again, after export only. So the above unlawful activities were aimed at misappropriation of FE.

13. That the said AD claimed ready transfer of our FE to Exporter’s account right on receipt of FDD. But here ghostly utterances are profoundly found in their documents in way as:
a. 3(three) of our FDDs were stated in memo to be received on 24.06.77. But CFIRs were issued against those FDDs on 20.06.77., by no. 3, 4 & 5 meaning issuance were done 4 days before seeing FDDs by eyes or touching those by hand. What a ghostly claim made by a RBI-appointed AD of FE, warrants keen note.
b. Again, the said exporter stated in writing on 18.12.77., that our FE was kept as lien to bank guarantee (No. 5/77 dt 04.08.77). So encashment claim was a shear untrue as per confession of its beneficiary.
c. Without embezzlement of our FE with those of others, issuance of that guarantee against legal deposit of exporters to the tune of IR. 12,500.00 was next to impossible. That may be seen from the RBI-enquiry report (1982), commissioned by the Manager, RBI, Kolkata, the then Head the Br. The report is lying with ECD, RBI, Kolkata, but not taking into active consideration in taking action, but found to be side-tracked.
d. The then Chairman of the AD issued that guarantee against his power of IR 3.00 then keeping that secret from the Board of Directors. It was a small bank then having only 19 branches over India, to note kindly.

14. That the negotiation of export papers was a MUST to be made as per serial of FE receipt as said in ECM rule 7A.8. The said AD violated that rule by negotiating export papers by breaking serial of FE receipt and, thus, we were deprived of our legitimate claim as we were the ever-first FE for both AD and the exporters, to repeat. To suppress that fact, the said AD made untrue statement that no export of salt was made by the said exporter and no export paper was negotiated by the said AD then. But STC, Madras, stated that the said exporter exported 20,271.460 MT of salt to Bangladesh and the said AD negotiated those papers.
15. That after doing all the above law violations, where huge criminal-natured offences were included, the said AD took re-remittance permit, as per ECM rule 7B.9(i), as ear-marked by ECM of RBI to be end address of FE remitted for trade, against our name and renewed that but did not use that permit till date.


[Page 02 of 03.]

16. That for making transaction with FE, RBI, has given clear cut MAGNA CARTER in way as follows:
a. For coins/notes/traveler’s cheque only, form ECF was/is to be issued and ready encash the FE and paid to the possessor thereof (rules under ECM Chapter 17).
b. For FDD/TT/MT, form CFIR to be issued again must be after receiving contact paper made in between the exporter and the overseas buyer and MUST record that in register under joint signature as per ECM rule 7A.2 & 7A.7., and to be transacted under ECM rules of Chapter 6 & 7.
c. To keep the FE remitted for trade in hand of AD treating that as lending thereto under Sec. 8(1) of FERA, 1973.
d. To negotiate export papers as per serial of FE receipt as per ECM rule 7A.8. AND
e. To MUST re-remit unused portion of FE to remitter under permission of RBI. For that, even the application of depositor was not at all kept necessary and instruction over AD was not to keep the contact “open for unreasonable length of time”. But nearly 39 years of time have been passed but we are yet to get back our FE.
17. That in such case of fraud, ECD, RBI, was to take legal action against incumbent officers of AD and correct the ill-doings of AD under statutory power given in Sec 42 & 47(b). Because the license of AD of FE was issued by RBI to make FE transaction by following rules of given in FERA and ECM rigidly as instructed under Sec. 6(4), 8(4) & 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973, and ECM rules 6.1., 6.2., 7.1.& 7.2. Here not a single rule was abided by the said AD, as documentarily evident. But we are with great woe to mention that we have not getting law-guided remedy from ECD, RBI, though repeatedly prayed for. Rather we observe side-tracking of matter, suppression of Enquiry report, claiming unusual matters, untrue declaration up to getting no law violation in the said transaction, nothing to do in the matter, repeated side-tracking of our memos quoting rules etc. That was for us denial of discharging statutory duty and responsibility though bound by law.
18. That no matter what is the action of ECD, RBI, usual and/or unusual, we are to get back our FE with compensation for unlawful use and blockade from AD, as our FE is treated to be with AD as per Sec. 8(1) of FERA, 1973. That is, under ECM rule 7B.9(i) which has made re-remittance of unused FE a MUST.
19. That though not at all necessary in making decision as clearly enumerated in ECM rule 7B.9(i), we are ready to place before your goodselves as to how far was the law-defying activities of ECDs, RBI, which included falsification like unusual deed by mentioning our Fe amount to be US$ 28,00.00 in reply to our legal notice for our US$ 33,400/- keeping matter od legality far away. This is quite unexpected from an organ of RBI, BEING THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA; AGAIN, LAW FRAMING, IMPLEMENTING AND EXECUTING AUTHORITY.
Under the above circumstances, our earnest prayer before your goodselves is to arrange re-remittance of our FE as your honour’s RBI’s own ECM rule 7B. 9(i) with compensation for losses incurred by intentional use and blockade by the incumbent AD. Your goodselves would kindly procure the Enquiry report of RBI (1982) lying with ECD, RBI, Kolkata, as we saw it there. That unveiled all the nefariously committed misdeeds of AD. But that has been side-tracked by the said department in replying our memo.
A line of reply through our email ID ([email protected] ) will greatly oblige us.
Obediently yours,


(M.S.Kamal),
For M/s. Gems Mullar.
[Page 03 of 03.]