9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 - Delay in conducting hearings by the Competent Authority - Lack of natural justice in proceedings - Justifiability of forfeiture of a small running business - Compliance with Section 8 of the Act. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property dealt with an appeal where the appellant was proceeded against under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The appellant, detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, was considered a "person" under the Act. The notice under section 6(1) was issued in 1980, and the appellant requested reasons recorded, which were provided in 1981. However, significant delays occurred in the proceedings. A hearing was scheduled in 1988, but it was conducted by an Inspecting Officer instead of the Competent Authority, raising concerns about procedural irregularities. The judgment highlighted the lack of proper conduct of hearings by the Competent Authority as required by the Act. Despite the appellant's request for an adjournment in 1993, the Competent Authority proceeded to pass the order within days of the fixed hearing date, disregarding natural justice principles. The Competent Authority's failure to address the appellant's request for clarity on the required details and the rushed decision-making process demonstrated a lack of procedural fairness throughout the proceedings. Regarding the justifiability of forfeiture, the Tribunal examined the nature of the appellant's business - a small watch repair shop. The appellant explained the capital contributions made over the years, emphasizing that they were from savings and legitimate sources. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of unlawful activities associated with the investments, questioning the basis for placing the onus on the appellant under section 8 of the Act. The judgment emphasized the need to consider the circumstances and facts of the case properly before proceeding with forfeiture, especially when dealing with a small business that serves as the appellant's livelihood. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the forfeiture of the appellant's small running business unjustifiable and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness, conducting hearings as per legal requirements, and ensuring a thorough assessment of the facts before deciding on forfeiture under the Act.
|
