9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order dropping proceedings for violation of FERA, Competency of Deputy Legal Adviser to file revision on behalf of Director of Enforcement. Issue 1: Challenge to order dropping proceedings for violation of FERA The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi involved a revision filed by the Deputy Legal Adviser for the Director of Enforcement challenging an order passed by the Addl. Director General, DGICC, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. The order in question, dated 6-10-2004, dropped the proceedings against the respondent for violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 49(3) of FEMA, 1999. The facts of the case revealed that the appellant and a co-noticee were served with a Show Cause Notice for the alleged violation, but the proceedings against the co-noticee were dropped as he was not served due to being in the USA. However, the proceedings against the appellant were also dropped on the grounds that the department did not provide copies of the documents relied upon in the Show Cause Notice. The appellant contended that this order was illegal and contrary to law. Issue 2: Competency of Deputy Legal Adviser to file revision on behalf of Director of Enforcement The second issue raised in the appeal was the competency of the Deputy Legal Adviser to file the revision on behalf of the Director of Enforcement. The respondent's counsel argued that the Deputy Legal Adviser lacked the authority to file the revision. In support of this argument, reference was made to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. M. I. Enterprises v. Director of Enforcement, where it was held that the Deputy Legal Adviser of the Director of Enforcement did not have the authority to file a revision before a specific date. This argument was further supported by citing a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Jain v. Director of Enforcement, where a similar view was upheld. Based on the precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not maintainable due to the lack of authority of the Deputy Legal Adviser to file the revision on behalf of the Director of Enforcement and consequently dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, addressed the issues of challenging the order dropping proceedings for violation of FERA and the competency of the Deputy Legal Adviser to file the revision on behalf of the Director of Enforcement. The Tribunal found the order dropping proceedings to be legal and dismissed the appeal based on the lack of authority of the Deputy Legal Adviser to file the revision.
|
