9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for prohibited foreign exchange transactions. 2. Lack of personal hearing by the Adjudicating Officer as per the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974. 3. Dispute regarding the receipt of show-cause notices and the timing of personal hearings. 4. Misdirection in law by the Deputy Director in passing the order without holding a personal hearing. 5. Consideration of penalties imposed by customs authorities and the appropriateness of further penalties under FERA. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against penalties imposed on the appellant for two prohibited foreign exchange transactions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit due to old age and financial constraints, emphasizing the lack of a personal hearing by the Adjudicating Officer as required by the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974. The Chairman waived the pre-deposit and proceeded to consider the appeal on merits, noting the appellant's contention that the Adjudicating Officer did not hold a personal hearing, a crucial procedural requirement. The appellant highlighted the delay in being informed about the adjudication proceedings and the lack of personal hearings until 1994, raising concerns about procedural fairness. The Chairman acknowledged the appellant's submissions and observed that the Deputy Director misdirected himself in law by not conducting a personal hearing before passing the order, contrary to the rules. While the respondent suggested remanding the case for a fresh hearing, the Chairman deemed it unjust given the circumstances, including penalties imposed by customs authorities and personal hardships faced by the appellant over a significant period. Considering the penalties already imposed by customs authorities and the lack of corroboration for the foreign exchange charge, the Chairman concluded that it would not be just to remand the case for a fresh hearing. In the interest of justice, the Chairman allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, thereby halting further proceedings and penalties under FERA. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, proper adjudication procedures, and the equitable consideration of circumstances in imposing penalties under relevant regulations.
|
