2001 (8) TMI 1457 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the revision petition due to delay.
2. Admissibility of evidence and findings in the adjudication proceedings.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
4. Applicability of saving provisions for revision petitions under the present Act.
5. Merits of the case regarding alleged contravention of foreign exchange regulations.

Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the revision petition due to delay:
The petitioner contended that the revision petition was filed almost five years after the impugned order, raising concerns of laches. The respondent argued that the delay was unjustified and the petition should be dismissed on this ground. The Tribunal held that the delay was not adequately explained by the petitioner, emphasizing the principle that redressal should be sought within a reasonable time. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be insufficient and concluded that the petition was liable to be dismissed based on delay alone.

2. Admissibility of evidence and findings in the adjudication proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the findings of the adjudicating officer, questioning the acceptance of a private handwriting expert opinion and arguing for a government examiner's opinion instead. The respondent countered by stating that the handwriting expert opinion was obtained through a government agency, not a private expert. The Tribunal noted that the conclusions of the adjudicating officer were based on an evaluation of facts and circumstances, deeming them neither arbitrary nor perverse. The Tribunal did not find grounds for intervention based on the evidence presented.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Foreign Exchange Management Act:
The respondent raised objections regarding non-verification of the petition and the petitioner's failure to cross-check the expenses before initiating adjudication proceedings. The respondent also highlighted the absence of a saving clause for revision petitions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, emphasizing that saving provisions were only applicable to appeals under the Act. The Tribunal considered these procedural arguments but ultimately dismissed the petition on other grounds.

4. Applicability of saving provisions for revision petitions under the present Act:
The respondent argued that the revision petition was not covered by any saving clause under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, which only provided for saving provisions for appeals. The respondent contended that the order had already been implemented, rendering the petition futile and of academic relevance. The Tribunal did not find the absence of a saving clause to be a determinative factor in the decision to dismiss the petition.

5. Merits of the case regarding alleged contravention of foreign exchange regulations:
The petitioner alleged that the respondent had illegally purchased foreign exchange from a foreign tourist, citing discrepancies in the fees charged by the respondent. The respondent refuted these claims, asserting that the seized foreign currency had been returned and accounted for in tax returns. The Tribunal considered the arguments on the alleged contravention but ultimately dismissed the petition primarily on the grounds of delay and lack of justification for the belated filing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revision petition primarily due to the unexplained delay in filing, without finding merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the alleged contravention of foreign exchange regulations and procedural objections raised by the respondent.