Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: appellate tribunal for foreign exchange new delhi Page 9 of about 156 results (0.130 seconds)

Aug 17 2001 (TRI)

Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Dr. Prakash N. Vaswani

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Adjudicating Order No. ADJ/166/B/DD/RAJ/96 dated 29-11-1996 whereby the adjudication proceedings initiated against the respondent pursuant to Show-Cause Notice No. T-4/56-B/DD/RAJ/96 dated 5-5-1996 were dropped. 2. Shri Gadoo on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the conclusions made by the learned adjudicating officer were wrong. The adjudicating officer erred in accepting the opinion of a private handwriting expert. Instead, Shri Gadoo submitted, he should have referred the matter to a Government examiner for his opinion. Shri Gadoo further submitted that for two out-patients, no doctor would receive foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 6,85,020 towards fee. It is thus clear that the Respondent No. 1 purchased the foreign exchange illegally from the foreign tourist who came to his clinic for treatment. Shri Gadoo further submitted that statement of Respondent No. 1 was in his own handwriting and was made voluntarily and was suffici...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 06 2001 (TRI)

Nanik Laungani Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order No. Adj/186/AD/AKL/B/2001 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.0 lakh on the appellant for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Shri Rajan Malkani assailed the impugned order on the ground of its being passed ex parte which is, ex facie, illegal for the reason that he along with the appellant did appear on 15-5-2001 and waited for 45 minutes when he was informed by the peon that the case was being adjourned. Shri Malkani then insisted that his Vakalatnama as well as reply to the show-cause notice be taken on record. Shri Malkani submitted that these have, in fact, been taken on record as could be gathered from the impugned order which contains detailed reference to this reply and yet the adjudicating authority has proceeded on the basis of non-appearance of the appellant and his counsel. 3. Dr. Shamusuddin did not controvert the correctness of the averments made by the appellants counsel. 4. I have gi...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2001 (TRI)

G.K. Asrani Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the order No. ADJ/102-103/2502 /B/DD/RAJ of 1993 dated 19-7-1993 whereby penalties of Rs. 9,000 and Rs. 45,000 were respectively imposed for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. In his stay petition, the Appellant pleaded strong prima facie case and on this ground, sought dispensation of pre-deposit of the amount of penalties. The appellant further stated in his Stay Petition that he would suffer great financial hardship if he is forced to pay penalty amount pending hearing of the Appeal and craved leave to refer to and rely upon the relevant documents to bring his financial position including his Income-tax return and wealth-tax return. When Shri Kumar, the Appellants counsel, was asked to show how pre-deposit would cause undue hardship, he submitted that the case is old one and on the facts of it, he is prepared to argue the case straightaway on merits with a view to have th...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2001 (TRI)

Rohit JaIn Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the Adjudication Order No. 183/ADJ/95-E.D. (RS) of 1978 dated 31-10-1995 whereunder a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravening provision of section 9(1)(a) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) for having received a cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs from Shri Sumeer Mahajan, a person resident outside India, purported to be by way of gift after paying a premium of Rs. 24,000 for the same. 2. The brief facts of the case are: On 28-10-1991 a search was conducted under section 37 of the Act at the residential premises of one Shri Sumeer Mahajan, as a result of which, foreign currency and documents were recovered and seized. The seized documents included pass-book of various NRE accounts of different persons reported to be settled outside India, blank gift forms and gift deeds. In his statement dated 28-10-1991. Shri Sumeer Mahajan has, inter alia, stated that number of NRE accounts with different Banks in Delhi were opened after...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2001 (TRI)

A. Michael Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sharma, ChairpersonBoth these appeals have arisen from the same order and as such are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Shri M. Jeevaratnam, the authorised representative of the appellants submitted that the appellants have deposited the amount of penalty and as such they are not seeking dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty and prayed that these appeals can be heard and disposed of on merits. 3. It is noted that Appeal No. 574/2000 has been filed on 29-8-2000. The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 comes into force with effect from 1-6-2000 and appeals filed thereunder are required to be accompanied by fee of Rs. 10,000. Shri Jeevaratnam was, therefore, asked to make good the deficiency in the amount of appeal fee by paying the balance amount before these appeals can be taken up for consideration on merits. Shri Jeevaratnam submitted that he would deposit the requisite amount of fee forthwith. He further submitted that the copy of the adjudication order was received belat...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 10 2001 (TRI)

Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. S.M.A. Siddique

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

D.P. Sharma, Chairperson.This revision petition is directed against the order No. SDE(RS) IV/76-77/84 dated 8-10-1984 whereby the charges against the two respondents were dropped and directed to be filed for the reason that one Mohd. Thamby could not be produced by the petitioner for cross-examination. It is noted that vide their orders in Appeal No. 121 of 1972 dated 16-9-1978 and Appeal No. 135 of 1972 dated 28-11-1978 the then Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board remanded these two cases for readjudication for the reason that the cross-examination of Mohd. Thamby, the co-accused, was considered to be essential and Mohd. Thamby was not made available to the respondents for that purpose. These two cases were not referred back for adjudication accordingly. In the readjudication proceedings, the said Mohd. Thamby was again not produced by the department for cross-examination. The said Mohd. Thamby is stated to have been disappeared. In view of this the learned adjudicating author...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2001 (TRI)

East India Goat SkIn Co. Vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directora ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. Shri R.A. Quraishi, a commission agent filed an authority letter dated 4-7-2001 from the appellant-firm authorising Shri Quraishi to make representation on its behalf in this appeal. Shri Quraishi admitted that he is neither an advocate nor a Chartered Accountant. Under rule 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, an applicant who has filed an appeal before this Tribunal can appoint a legal practitioner or a Chartered Accountant to appear and plead and act on his behalf. Shri Quraishi does fall under any of these two categories of authorised representative, he, therefore, cannot be allowed to make representation. 2. When this appeal was last fixed for hearing on 11-6-2001, notice of hearing were sent to the appellants as well as the appellants counsel Ms. Radha Rangaswamy. Both the notices were duly served on the addressees. However, no communication was received from the counsel. The firm made a written request for adjournment. The r...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 27 2001 (TRI)

P.M.S. Tajudeen Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal is against the Adjudication Order No. DD/MAS/85/86 on File No. T4/30 S2/City/86 dated 25-3-1986 whereby penalty of Rs. 5,000 has been imposed on the Appellant for contravening the provisions of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The amount of penalty has already been deposited by the Appellant. 2. Notices of hearing of this appeal were sent to the Appellant and his advocate but the same have been received back undelivered. However, having gone through the impugned order and appeal petition there against as, available in the appeal file, I find this case fit for invoking the powers vested in this Tribunal in terms of sub-section (6) of section 19 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, as is considered necessary for the purpose of examining the legality and propriety and the correctness of the impugned order. The matter is accordingly being taken up as such. It is seen that on the invitation of his brother-in-law in Singapore, the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2001 (TRI)

Avtar Singh Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This is an appeal against the Order No. SDE(RS)V/Z-5/85 dated 11-6-1985 by which a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed on the appellant for contravening sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). 2. In this case, four Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) dated 5-7-1979 were served upon the appellant alleging contravention of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) and 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and calling upon him to show-cause as to why adjudication proceedings be not held against him. After holding the proceedings and hearing the Party, the Adjudicating Officer acquitted him in respect of SCN-I, III and IV, holding that there was no evidence to show that the appellant had received payment or made payments by order on behalf of the person resident of U.K. As regards SCN-II wherein the alleged contravention was for an amount of Rs. 12,13,700, the Adjudicating Officer found that the department had proved that the involvement of R...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2001 (TRI)

M.K. Jain, Proprietor, Chelsea Mills Vs. Deputy Director, Enforcement ...

Court : Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

Sharma, Chairperson - This appeal is against the order No. ADJ/1/2001/DD(KNS)/2641 dated 19-3-2001 imposing a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs on the appellant, Shri M.K. Jain, Proprietor, Chelsea Mills for contravening the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act). The appeal is accompanied with an application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty amount of Rs. 4 lakhs on the ground that the deposit of the penalty amount by the appellant in the circumstances of the case will cause undue hardship to him. The learned counsel of the appellant expressed his willingness to argue the case on merits straightway so that the appeal can be finally disposed of. 2. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made in the memorandum of appeal and the material brought on record by which number of documents annexed to the appeal indicating the steps taken by the appellant for realisation of the export proceeds in question and p...

Tag this Judgment!


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