9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight of appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is conferred upon any aggrieved person. Since the Original Order of Adjudication was by the Collector of Customs, nominated under Section 16(1) of the Act, the appeal filed by the Special Director of Enforcement, before the Tribunal cannot be treated as not maintainable. The Department will come within the meaning of the expression "aggrieved person". Hence, the preliminary contention regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, is liable to be rejected. On merits, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, the appellant did not file any appeal as against the finding that he was guilty of violation of Section 9(1)(d) of the Act. The discretion supposedly exercised by the Original Authority to let off the appellant with a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- cannot be approved. First of all we do not think that he had a discretion. Even assuming that he had a discretion, the manner in which the first authority exercised the discretion and the reasoning given by him are wholly unsustainable as can be seen from the extract of para 21 of the order of themOriginal Authority, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case was 9 years old and that there was an endeavour to complete the adjudication proceedings initiated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 within a time frame, after the new Act namely Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, came into effect, the Adjudicating Officer imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- upon the appellant. The Adjudicating Officer also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- upon the accomplice and directed the release of the seized amount of ₹ 10,00,000/-, after deducting the total fine amount of ₹ 1,25,000/- imposed upon both the persons. 6. Neither the accomplice S.M.Sultan, nor the appellant filed any appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Officer, holding them guilty of the respective charges. Therefore, the finding of the Adjudicating Officer that the appellant was guilty of violation of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the finding of the Adjudicating Officer that S.M.Sultan was guilty of contravening the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, attained finality. 7. However, the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate filed a Revision before the Appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thiru. G.Ramanujam, J (as he then was), held on a reading of the Explanation to Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 that under the said provision, it is only Central Government who can be treated as an aggrieved party for the purpose of filing an appeal. The appeal was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement who was the initial authority to pass the adjudication order. Therefore, the court held that the appeal was not maintainable and that it cannot even be made maintainable by allowing an application for amendment of the cause title. 13. Similarly, in the case of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail, an order of adjudication was passed by the Special Director. The appeal was filed by the individual to the Board. The Board allowed the appeal of the individuals. Therefore, the Special Director of Enforcement filed an appeal to the High Court, without impleading the Central Government as a party. The High Court dismissed the appeal, placing reliance upon the decision of the learned Judge of this court in Rama Arangannal as well as on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Director of Enforcement v. Lal Chand [(1985) 6 ECC 55]. While allowing the appeal of the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1999 provided a right of appeal to one or more Special Directors (Appeals), as against an order made by an Adjudicating Authority, if such Adjudicating Authority was an Assistant Director or Deputy Director of Enforcement. 19. As against the orders passed by the Special Director (Appeals), an appeal under Section 17, a further appeal was provided under Section 19 to the Appellate Tribunal. Similarly, if the Original Order itself is passed by a person of the rank of Director, the appeal would lie to the Appellate Tribunal. As against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, a further appeal is provided to this Court under Section 75 of the Act. Thus, a four tier maxim was created under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. 20. A careful comparison of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 would show that there was no post of Special Director under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 a Special Director was created only as Appellate Authority, though a person of the rank of Director would also be an Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the decision in Rama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
