9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Non-payment of the balance amount of seized funds. 3. Responsibility for refund process post adjudication order. 4. Lack of specific directions in the adjudication order for refund. Analysis: 1. The appeal arose from an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000 on the appellant for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The appellant was allowed to recover the penalty from the seized amount of Rs. one lakh, with the balance to be returned to the appellant. The grievance was that the balance amount of Rs. 70,000 had not been paid despite the adjudication order dated 25-9-1997. 2. The appellant approached the Assistant Director's office for the refund but was advised to file an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal. The respondent argued that the delay might be due to the pending appeal or non-availability of the seizing officer. However, the Chairman noted that once the adjudication order is made, the seized amount is subject to that order, and any delay in refunding the balance amount is unjustified. 3. The Chairman emphasized that the responsibility for refund lies with the Directorate, and any further retention of the balance amount after recovering the penalty is unlawful. The appellant's counsel requested specific directions for the refund in the adjudication order, which was found justified by the Chairman. In cases like this where refunding the balance amount is straightforward, specific directions should be provided by the Adjudicating Officer. 4. In light of the above observations, the Chairman directed the respondents to pay back the balance amount of Rs. 70,000 to the appellant through an appropriate pay order, to be sent to the appellant's new address. This decision was made to ensure the proper and timely refund of the balance amount as per the adjudication order.
|
