2023 (5) TMI 659 - HC - Money Laundering

Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity to summon the Assistant Director and Deputy Director of the respondent authority for their examination/cross-examination, rejected - rejection holding that no meaningful purpose would be served by cross-examining the said officers - HELD THAT - The appeal is disposed of with the following directions (i) It would be open to the appellant to raise all issues, factual as well as legal before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of final hearing. (ii) The Adjudicating Authority would be at liberty to take an independent view of the entire factual matrix as well as legal issues without being influenced by any observation contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 08.05.2023 on the merits of the factual matrix as well as legal issues. (iii) The Adjudicating Authority shall permit the appellant to address arguments and rely upon the material that has already been placed before it by the appellant before forming an opinion with regard to passing of the final order in terms of Section 8 of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves an appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, regarding the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The main issues include the valuation of assets to be attached and the request to summon officers for examination/cross-examination.

Valuation of Assets Issue:
The Appellate Tribunal returned a finding that the valuation of assets to be attached should be as on the date of acquisition or possession, not the fair market value as on the date of attachment. The appellant raised concerns about the mode and manner of proving the valuation by the authority and the counter material to be produced. The appellant argued that no evidence was taken regarding the valuation of assets at the date of attachment.

Examination/Cross-Examination Issue:
The appellant had sought an opportunity to summon the Assistant Director and Deputy Director of the respondent authority for examination/cross-examination. The Adjudicating Authority rejected this application, stating that no meaningful purpose would be served. The challenge to this rejection was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

Judgment Details:
The High Court allowed the exemption subject to all just exceptions. The appellant withdrew the appeal with the right to raise all factual and legal issues before the Adjudicating Authority. The Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to take an independent view without being influenced by the Appellate Tribunal's order. The appellant was permitted to address arguments and rely on material before the Adjudicating Authority for the final order under Section 8 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn with the specified directions, clarifying that the Court did not comment on the merits of the contentions. The proceedings were listed before the Adjudicating Authority for final arguments, with the appellant undertaking to proceed without seeking adjournment.