9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Petition to quash orders under Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 and Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. - Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property regarding the order. - Permissibility of additional evidence before the Tribunal. - Interpretation of Rule 15 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property) Rules, 1977. Analysis: The petitioner, being the daughter of a person detained under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, faced forfeiture proceedings under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976. The competent authority issued a notice requiring the petitioner to explain the lawful sources of various properties. Despite being given an opportunity, the petitioner failed to provide evidence, leading to the forfeiture of the properties. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal, where an affidavit was submitted, but the Tribunal refused to accept it, citing lack of satisfactory explanation and necessity for further evidence. The main contention revolved around the permissibility of the petitioner to adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal. The petitioner argued that sincere efforts were made to produce evidence, but she was not allowed to do so. On the other hand, the Department's counsel contended that Rule 15 of the Rules restricts the right to adduce additional evidence before the appellate authority unless under specific circumstances. The key question was whether the petitioner should have been permitted to present additional evidence before the Tribunal. The Court delved into the relevant provisions of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the affected person and the powers of the Appellate Tribunal to conduct further inquiries. Rule 15 of the Rules was scrutinized, which outlines the conditions under which additional evidence can be produced before the Tribunal. The Court highlighted that while the petitioner did not avail of the initial opportunity to provide evidence before the competent authority, the Tribunal, equipped with civil court powers, should have considered whether the additional evidence was essential for dispensing justice in the case. Ultimately, the Court found that the Tribunal failed to evaluate the case under Rule 15(a) of the Rules, which warranted the allowance of additional evidence for the purpose of rendering justice. Consequently, the writ petition was partially allowed, quashing the previous order and remitting the appeal back to the Tribunal with directions to decide afresh, affording the petitioner an opportunity to produce evidence. The parties were instructed to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date, with a warning that failure to do so would lead to the Tribunal proceeding in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded in the matter.
|
