(Appeal under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 against the order in Revision petition No.673 of 2003 dated 9.2.2004 on the file of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the order No.DD/16-19/BZ/HYB/2003/FEMA Deputy Director of enforcement, Bangalore.)

The Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, III Floor, Damayanthi Chambers, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad, had preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’ for the purpose of convenience.

2. In the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal the order impugned is dated 9.2.2004 made in Revision Petition No.673 of 2003 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, which is said to have been received on 10.4.2004.

3. Section 35 of the Act dealing with Appeal to High Court, reads as hereunder:

“Appeal to High Court: -

Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law arising out of such order:

Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

4. In Revision Petition No.673 of 2003 on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, 4th Floor, ‘B’ Wing, Janapath Bhawan, New Delhi, it was referred to as appeal against Adjudication Order No.DD/16-19/BZ/HYB/2003-FEMA Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bangalore, dated 13.5.2003. Though the same was numbered as Revision Petition No.673 of 2003, as against the original order of adjudication referred to supra, an appeal was preferred to the Appellate Tribunal and being aggrieved of the order made by the Appellate Tribunal specified above, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. It is needless to say that virtually this is an appeal as against an appellate order made by the Appellate Tribunal and the same to be numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal instead of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as such. Be that as it may, as can be seen from the language employed in Section 35 of the Act referred to supra, in view of the fact that it was specified that any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law arising out of such order, the same was numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, but inasmuch such appeals are being filed as against the orders made by the Appellate Tribunals, hereinafter these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals to be numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals. It is also needless to say that from the language employed in Section 35 of the Act referred to above, it is clear that an appeal would lie to this Court on any question of law arising out such order.

5. Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant had taken this Court through the relevant findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and also the relevant findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal and would contend that the Appellate Tribunal had not appreciated the statement of Dinesh Doshi in proper perspective. The counsel also pointed out that the view expressed that the statement is not in relation to the seized amount of Rs.10,29,000/- cannot be sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The counsel also pointed out to the relevant charges, which had been specified by the Adjudicating Authority and also the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in this regard. The counsel would submit that inasmuch the provisions of Section 35 of the Act being just akin to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,