2012 (10) TMI 197 - HC - FEMA

FEMA - Writ petition - provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the amount - search in the house of the petitioner as per the provisions of Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on 8-10-1993 - Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount which is the pre-deposit - petitioner was unable to comply with the said order and ultimately, the second respondent has dismissed the appeal on 17-7-2007 - After dismissal of the appeal nearly 2 years, at the instance of the Department, the third respondent Tahsildar has initiated proceedings under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act to recover the amount and that has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is opposed to the principles enunciated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - Held that - It is certainly not open to the petitioner to quash the validity of such order of the Appellate Tribunal especially when the third respondent has proceeded to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act - Tribunal s order was on 17-3-2007 and the petitioner has chosen to challenge the same only in the year 2010 without resorting to the remedy of appeal to the High Court within 60 days and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed - writ petition fails and the same is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against order of Appellate Tribunal invoking Revenue Recovery Act.
2. Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement.
3. Dispute regarding intimation of order to make pre-deposit.
4. Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal and High Court under different Acts.
5. Delay in challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order invoking the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery. The petitioner faced penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for alleged contraventions. The appeal was dismissed due to failure to pre-deposit the penalty amount.

2. The Appellate Tribunal's order for pre-deposit was contested by the petitioner, claiming non-intimation of the directive. However, the Court found that the order was duly communicated to both the petitioner and their counsel. The dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance was deemed valid.

3. The petitioner argued that lack of awareness about the order justified challenging the Appellate Tribunal's decision. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that filing an appeal through counsel implies awareness of judicial proceedings.

4. The judgment highlighted the transition from the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The appeal process and grounds for intervention differed between the two Acts, affecting the petitioner's legal options.

5. The Court noted the petitioner's delay in challenging the Appellate Tribunal's decision, waiting almost 2.5 years before contesting the matter. This delay, coupled with failure to pursue the High Court appeal within the specified timeframe, led to the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of laches.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to comply with legal procedures, including pre-deposit requirements and timely appeals. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural adherence and timely recourse to legal remedies under the relevant Acts, ultimately leading to the rejection of the petitioner's claims.