2015 (2) TMI 1160 - HC - FEMA

Penalty under Section 13(1) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - direction to the fourth respondent seeked to release the balance amount directed to be released to the petitioner under Ext.P1 order - Held that - As a statutory appeal under Section 17 of the Act is pending before the fifth respondent and the said amount cannot be released during the pendency of the said appeal thus find some force in the objection raised by the revenue. The grievances of the petitioner can be redressed by directing the fifth respondent to dispose the statutory appeal at the earliest. The fifth respondent is directed to dispose Ext.P5 appeal at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from today.

Summary

Issues:
- Proceedings under Section 3(c) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
- Imposition of penalty under Section 13(1) of the Act
- Appeal under Section 17 of the Act
- Release of balance amount after appropriating penalty

Analysis:
The petitioner was facing proceedings initiated by the third respondent under Section 3(c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Following a hearing, the fourth respondent issued Ext.P1 order imposing a penalty under Section 13(1) of the Act and directed the release of the balance amount after deducting the penalty from the seized amount. Subsequently, the fourth respondent appealed under Section 17 of the Act before the fifth respondent, leading to the filing of a writ petition seeking the release of the balance amount directed in Ext.P1 order. The revenue, representing all respondents, objected to releasing the balance amount pending the appeal under Section 17.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue argued that the statutory appeal under Section 17 was pending before the fifth respondent, and therefore, the balance amount could not be released during the appeal's pendency. The court acknowledged the merit in the revenue's objection, recognizing the need to address the petitioner's grievances promptly.

In light of the circumstances, the court concluded that the petitioner's concerns could be resolved by instructing the fifth respondent to expedite the disposal of the statutory appeal. Consequently, the fifth respondent was directed to resolve the Ext.P5 appeal expeditiously, ensuring a resolution within a maximum period of two months from the date of the judgment. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, providing a clear directive for the resolution of the appeal and the release of the balance amount after the penalty deduction as per Ext.P1 order.