9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. Inadequate cross-examination leading to denial of opportunity. Need for fresh adjudication considering the lapses in the previous proceedings. Requirement for a detailed and reasoned order by the adjudicating authority. Setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for fresh adjudication. Analysis: The appeal and petition for waiver of pre-deposit were filed against an Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of sections of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant raised concerns about the violation of natural justice principles in the adjudication process, claiming that the impugned order was made without giving an opportunity for submissions and concluding the hearings. The record indicated discrepancies in the cross-examination process, leading to a lack of completion before the order was passed. The Board found merit in the appellant's contention, stating that the order was made in denial of the opportunity, warranting the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement to avoid undue hardship. The Board highlighted the importance of completing cross-examination before oral submissions could be made, emphasizing the need for a fair and comprehensive adjudication process. Due to the lapses in the previous proceedings, the case was remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The Board acknowledged the challenges posed by the lapse of time in producing all relevant persons for cross-examination and advised the Adjudicating Officer to exclude statements of individuals whose cross-examination had been sought but could not be completed. Additionally, the Board stressed the necessity for the adjudicating authority to assess the evidence materially related to specific allegations and ensure that the evidence substantiates all charges against the appellant. A detailed and reasoned order was deemed essential, requiring separate consideration of each charge with precise findings on the extent to which they have been established. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to present evidence before the Special Director. In conclusion, the Board nullified the confiscation order, reinstating the seized amount pending further proceedings. The decision aimed to rectify the procedural irregularities and ensure a fair and thorough adjudication process for the appellant.
|
