9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against Adjudication Order imposing penalties for contravention of foreign exchange regulations, violation of natural justice principles, denial of cross-examination, misconducted proceedings.
Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the Adjudication Order imposing penalties on the appellants for contravention of foreign exchange regulations. The first appellant was found guilty of contravention by paying a sum to the second appellant, who received it in exchange for US dollars. The first appellant deposited the penalty amount, while the requirement of pre-deposit for the second appellant was dispensed with by the Board. 2. The respondent's representative and the appellant's advocate presented arguments, leading to a decision to hear one appeal before the other. The first appellant requested more time due to ill health, but the Board proceeded with the hearing and decided to dispose of both appeals together. 3. In appeal No. 439 of 1993, the appellant challenged the order on the grounds of a violation of natural justice principles. The Adjudicating Officer held a hearing without the appellant's presence, considering submissions from the Investigating Officer, which the appellant was not privy to, leading to a claim of illegality and invalidity of the order. 4. Appeal No. 446 of 1993 raised similar issues of natural justice violation and the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine a co-accused. The Adjudicating Officer allowed submissions from the Investigating Officer without notice to the appellant, leading to a contention of vitiated proceedings. 5. The denial of cross-examination of the first appellant was also challenged in appeal No. 446 of 1993. Despite requests for cross-examination, the appellant was not granted the opportunity, leading to a breach of fair procedure. 6. The Adjudicating Officer's failure to allow cross-examination and considering the first appellant's statement without proper procedure led to a conclusion that the proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice principles, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. 7. The Board allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for due process and adherence to legal principles. The appellants were directed to appear for oral hearing on a specified date, and the first appellant was to be refunded the penalty amount if deposited.
|
