9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions referred to therein and as to why US $ 13,000 and Rs. 2,60,915 Indian currency seized from the petitioner stated to be the amount involved in the contravention in question should not be confiscated to the Central Government under section 63 of the Act. The said memorandum also informs the recipients including the petitioner of the said memorandum, that in issuing the said proceedings reliance is placed, inter alia, on the documents listed in the annexure thereto, that the originals of the said documents will be made available to the party or their lawyer or to their authorised representative to inspect, if they so desire at the place mentioned after fixing an appointment with the deputy director, in addition to inviting their attention to the proviso to rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adjudication Rules"), and the rights available there under. The petitioner approached this court by filing the above writ petition on more than one ground, but at the time of hearing, the challenge was confined by learned senior counsel to only a few of the grounds to which at reference will be made hereinafter. The main ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29, 1976. The claim on behalf of the petitioner that copies' of the documents seized from Raman Chelliah were not given are stated to be false and they were also said to have been given along with other annexures to the memorandum and that there is no need to intimate the petitioner about the further course of action taken against the said Raman Chelliah. As for the claim about the defective and irregular service of the memorandum, it is contended for the respondents that the impugned memorandum was duly sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to the petitioner and the postal acknowledgment card for the same has been signed by his wife and, therefore, the service of the impugned memorandum upon the petitioner is quite in accordance with law. It is also stated that the petitioner also sent a telegram to the Deputy Director, Madras, confirming the receipt of the memorandum and, therefore, the impugned memorandum does not call for any interference by this court at this stage of the proceedings. W. A. No. 851 of 1994 has been filed against the order of the learned single judge dated June 22, 1994 (A Abdul Samath v. Union of India [1995] 83 Comp Cas 99), in W. P. No. 8326 of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned judge placed reliance upon the unreported decision of another learned single judge of this court dated April 21, 1994, in W. P. No. 1280 of 1994 (K. M. A. Abdul Kabeer v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate [1995] 82 Comp Cas 526 ) and concurred with the view taken therein that the notification empowering persons not below the rank of the Assistant Director of Enforcement would be a sufficient answer to the objection raised on behalf of the appellant before the learned judge. As for the second ground of challenge about the Special Director issuing the memorandum in his capacity as Special Director only, the learned judge again adverted to the decision in W. P. No. 1280 of 1994 (K. M. A. Abdul Kabeer v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate [1995] 82 Comp Cas 526 (Mad)) and the notification dated September 22, 1989, published in the Gazette of India, specifically authorising the Special Director to be an Officer of Enforcement for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Act and to exercise the powers under section 50 of the said Act as constituting a sufficient answer. As for the plea raised based on the earlier admission of W. P. No. 3487 of 1994, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atsoever in any of the contentions raised both in the writ petition as also in the writ appeal. So far as the plea raised on the ground that unless the memoranda under challenge in these proceedings have been shown or disclosed to have been issued by an officer of the rank and also with the designation of the adjudicating officer in the proceedings themselves the impugned proceeding are liable to be struck down is of no substance. In the-light of the notifications referred to and relied upon for the respondents as also by the learned single judge, the ground of challenge lacks any merit In Notification F. No. 174/2/89-TC(E), dated September 22, 1989, the Central Government appointed Shri S. S. Renjhen invoking the powers of section 4(1) read with clause (e) of section 3 of the Act to be an Officer of Enforcement with the designation of Special Director of Enforcement for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the said Act. The said notification also, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 50 of the' Act, empowered him to adjudicate cases of contravention of any of the provisions thereof other than section 13, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 18 and clause ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1974. Consequently, the pretended confusion or lack of disclosure of the proper identity and authority of the officer issuing the memorandum is nothing but a futile attempt and seems to be desperately made to drag on the proceedings or delay the adjudication process and thereby thwart the action in law against the appellant and the petitioner in these cases. The" impugned proceedings, in our view, do not leave either scope or room for any doubt that they have been issued in exercise of the powers of adjudication conferred upon the duly and properly constituted adjudicating officers, though the memoranda themselves do not purport to describe those officers as adjudicating officers. Of course, the authorities could have been more discreet and careful in properly describing their identity but the failure on their part in this regard, in our view, does not in any manner undermine their authority to issue the impugned memoranda or pursue the adjudication process further in accordance with law. The challenge in this regard shall stand rejected as of no merit of acceptance. The plea based on the irregular service of the notice under challenge upon the petitioner in W. P. No. 3487 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich issued it. This contention also, therefore, fails and shall stand rejected. The further plea on behalf of the petitioner that of the four annexures listed in the memorandum items Nos. 1 and 4 have not been served on the petitioner and that this constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the impugned memorandum is liable to be struck down is equally devoid of merit. In the counter-affidavit, it is denied that two items of annexures have not been served. For the purpose of the present case, it is unnecessary to enter into the controversy and adjudicate upon the factual position as to whether the same has really been served or not. So far as the case on hand and particularly the one which is the subject-matter of the writ petition before us is concerned, it is only at the stage of show-cause notice. The memorandum itself disclosed that the original annexures on the basis of which the memorandum came to be issued are available for perusal by the petitioner or his counsel or authorised agent. If really the copies in respect of two annexures have not been issued and served upon the petitioner, there is every scope to obtain the same, inasmuch as nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
