9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of foreign currency at the airport and subsequent adjudication proceedings. 2. Allegations of inadequate opportunity for defense during the adjudication process. Analysis: 1. Seizure of Foreign Currency and Adjudication Proceedings: The case involved the interception of an individual at the airport with a substantial amount of foreign currency. The individual was found with a large sum of foreign currency equivalent to Rs. 63,64,875/-, which was seized by Customs authorities under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner, who possessed the currency, was questioned about the source of the funds but failed to provide any documentary evidence. Subsequently, adjudication proceedings were initiated by the Customs authorities to determine any violations of the law. The Adjudicating Authority, in an order dated June 7, 1991, decided to confiscate the entire foreign currency and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,00,000/- on the petitioner. This order was challenged in court through a writ petition. 2. Allegations of Inadequate Opportunity for Defense: During the adjudication process, the petitioner claimed that the Adjudicating Authority did not provide sufficient opportunity to present a defense. The petitioner's counsel argued that the investigation was incomplete, and the petitioner was not given ample time to prepare a defense after the documents were supplied. The court noted that the investigation into the source of the foreign currency would take time due to the complexity of the case. The court found merit in the argument that the petitioner was not given enough opportunity to defend the case effectively. As a result, the court set aside the impugned adjudication order and directed a fresh adjudication process to be conducted by an officer other than the one who had previously issued the order. The court emphasized that the new Adjudicating Authority should allow the petitioner full opportunity to present a defense and conduct the proceedings fairly. In conclusion, the court discharged the rule in the earlier writ petition without costs but maintained the order regarding the return of the passport on certain conditions. The interim relief granted in the previous writ petition was vacated. In the subsequent writ petition, the court made the rule absolute, setting aside the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority and remitting the proceedings back for a fresh determination by a different officer. No costs were awarded in this matter.
|
