9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal under FER Act, 1973; Validity of revision petition filed by Enforcement Directorate; Service of notice on respondents; Authority to file revision petition under the name of Union of India; Procedural correctness of filing revision petition by Assistant Legal Adviser; Maintaining addresses of respondents for service of notice.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, the Tribunal was approached through a revision petition by the Enforcement Directorate challenging an adjudication order exonerating the respondents from allegations related to acquisition and deposit of foreign exchange in contravention of various sections of the FER Act, 1973 and the Exchange Control Manual. The Tribunal was tasked with examining the legality, propriety, and correctness of the adjudication order in question. The respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 1 and 3, faced issues with the service of notice and the correctness of their identification in the proceedings. Despite repeated attempts by the Tribunal to ensure effective service on the respondents, they remained absent and unrepresented throughout the proceedings, leading to doubts about the validity of the process. The Tribunal deliberated on the authority behind the filing of the revision petition by the Enforcement Directorate. It was noted that the revision petition was filed in the name of the Union of India but signed by an Assistant Legal Adviser (ALA) without clear authorization or delegation of authority on record. The Tribunal analyzed constitutional provisions regarding the expression of executive actions by the Government of India and the necessity for proper authorization for such actions. It was concluded that the filing of the revision petition by the ALA without demonstrated authority was procedurally incorrect and lacked the necessary support for such an executive action. Furthermore, the issue of maintaining addresses of respondents for the service of notice was raised. The Enforcement Directorate failed to assert the availability of the respondents at the addresses provided in the revision petition, leading to doubts about the effectiveness of the service of notice. Despite requests for additional adjournments by the ALA, the Tribunal found it unjustified to delay proceedings when the addresses of the respondents were not confirmed. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable and ordered its rejection, emphasizing the need for procedural correctness in such legal actions.
|
