Skip to content


Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Calcutta and ors. Vs. Bird and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFERA
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.F.O.O. No. 153 of 1976 in Matter No. 399 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Cal439
ActsForeign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 - Section 19(2)
AppellantDirector of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Calcutta and ors.
RespondentBird and Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
Advocates:D.K. Sen and ;T.K. Basu, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....after considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the learned judge was justified in striking down the notices on the ground that the same were not issued in conformity with the provisions of section 19 (2) of the act. the learned judge directed the customs authorities to return to the respondents writ petitioners the documents which were not relevant for the purpose of the pending cases against the respondents under the customs act and the customs authorities were ordered and directed to return all such documents to the respondents writ petitioners on the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the order of the learned judge, if within the said period no valid notice under the foreign exchange regulation act was served on the.....
Judgment:

M.M. Dutt, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Calcutta, and others against the judgment of A. N. Sen, J. (as His Lordship then was) whereby the learned Judge struck down the two notices, one dated Nov. 22, 1963 and the other dated May18, 1967 issued under Sec. 19 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

2. The notice dated Nov. 22, 1963 was struck down on the ground that the authority issuing the notice had not applied its mind before issuing the said notice under Section 19 (2) of the Act. So far as the notice dated May 18, 1967 is concerned, it was held to be invalid as the 'authority issuing the notice was not empowered to issue the same under Section 19 (2) of the Act. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, we are of the view that the learned Judge was justified in striking down the notices on the ground that the same were not issued in conformity with the provisions of Section 19 (2) of the Act. The learned Judge directed the Customs Authorities to return to the respondents writ petitioners the documents which were not relevant for the purpose of the pending cases against the respondents under the Customs Act and the Customs authorities were ordered and directed to return all such documents to the respondents writ petitioners on the expiry of the period of three months from the date of the order of the learned Judge, if within the said period no valid notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was served on the respondents writ petitioners by the appropriate authority, requiring production or making over of the documents in the custody and possession of the Customs authorities. In our view also, the appellants should be given an opportunity to issue notices in accordance with law and in compliance with the direction given by the learned Judge. In the circumstances, we direct that the documents should be returned by the Customs authorities to the respondents writ petitioners on the expiry of a period of two months from date unless valid notices in accordance with law are issued by the appropriate authorities concerned requisitioning the documents within the said period. The notices, if issued, shall specify the documents which are considered to be relevant by the authorities concerned.

3. The appeal is disposed of as above.

4. There will be no order as to costs.

Monoj Kumar Mukherjee, J.

5. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //