9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Penalty imposed for contravention of sections 3 and 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Legality of the impugned order challenged on grounds of ownership of seized foreign currency, denial of opportunity of being heard, and jurisdiction of adjudicating authority Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against an order imposing a penalty for contravening sections 3 and 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, along with confiscation of foreign currency. The appellant's counsel challenged the legality of the order on three grounds. Firstly, it was argued that the seized foreign currency belonged to the appellant. Secondly, the appellant was denied the opportunity of being heard. Thirdly, it was contended that the adjudicating authority lacked the jurisdiction to pass the order. The counsel referenced specific provisions of the Act and rules to support these arguments. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the adjudicating authority did not have the requisite competency and jurisdiction to hold the appellant guilty of contravening the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It was pointed out that the authority had exceeded its powers as conferred by law. Additionally, the counsel argued that the appellant was not given a show-cause notice or a personal hearing as required by the rules. The counsel emphasized that these legal requirements are statutory in nature and cannot be waived by the appellant. The circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the foreign currency by the appellant were also presented to support the claim of ownership and lack of contravention of the law. On behalf of the respondents, it was admitted that the officers of Customs and Central Excise did not have the power to adjudicate contraventions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It was conceded that the matter could be remanded for fresh adjudication by the appropriate authority. After considering the submissions, the Chairperson of the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. It was concluded that the adjudicating authority lacked the necessary competency and jurisdiction to decide on the alleged contraventions. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and fresh adjudication proceedings were directed to be conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at the appropriate level. Strict compliance with the legal requirements, especially those outlined in the relevant rules, was emphasized for the fresh proceedings. In summary, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the respondents for reevaluation in accordance with the directions provided in the Tribunal's order. The key issues of ownership of seized currency, denial of opportunity to be heard, and jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority were thoroughly analyzed and addressed in the judgment.
|
