9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it is not possible for him to attend the hearing at Delhi due to his old age and paucity of funds. He has prayed that his application for waiver of pre-deposit and the appeal be disposed of after considering the synopsis of his written submissions and the record of the case. 3. Shri Gadoo is present for the respondents. He has been heard. 4. The appellant has stressed one of the several points on which he has assailed the impugned order and in my opinion that point itself, which appears from a bare perusal of the impugned order, is sufficient to dispose of the appeal on merits. I, therefore, decided to waive the pre-deposit and proceeded to consider the appeal on merits. This order disposes of the appeal. 5. The appellant has pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Desai, Dy. Director and not by Shri A.A. Shankar who had heard the case. 7. The facts as stated by the appellant in the written submissions cannot be disputed as the same have been reproduced in the impugned order itself. The appellant has disputed the receipt of show-cause notice in 1979 but in my opinion that is not relevant because, in any case, it is clear from the impugned order that no personal hearings were held after the receipt of the appellant s interim reply dated 9-8-1979 and before January 1994. No doubt the learned Adjudicating Officer has discussed in detail the points made by the appellant in his replies to the show-cause notices which have been repeated in the written submissions and filed by him except the point of time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the material for which he has already been penalised by the customs authorities, though I am conscious, that the proceeding under the Customs Act is no bar for imposition of any penalty for violation of FERA. The issue essentially is whether any further penalty is called for and for determination of that issue it is not irrelevant to take into consideration the fact of imposition of penalties by the customs authorities and confiscation of the incriminating gold and foreign currency as also the circumstances of personal hardships that visited the appellant during the intervening 15-16 years. The gap of about 15 years in holding the personal hearing, which will now be of 16-17 years, is also a relevant consideration. 9. In the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
