JUDGMENT :

(Debangsu Basak, J.) :

1. Seven appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same order in appeal dated March 2, 2009 passed in respect of adjudication order No. SDE(SSB)/II/07/2003 dated August 28, 2003 of the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate. The appeal being No.FEA/13/2009 is at the behest of the company while the appeals being FEA/15/2009 to FEA/20/2009 are appeals at the behest of the directors of such company.

2. The Enforcement Directorate issued a memorandum dated May 3, 2002 to the company and its directors calling upon them to show cause as to why adjudication proceedings should not be initiated against them for their failure to take action to secure the receipt of export proceedings to the tune of US$ 6,37,000 out of the total invoice value of US$ 8,37,200 in respect of 3GRs all dated March 29, 1996.

3. The show cause notice dated May 3, 2002 resulted in an order of adjudication dated December 30, 2002. The adjudication order on appeal was set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and was remanded for fresh adjudication. The fresh adjudication resulted in an order dated August 28, 2003.

4. The order dated August 28, 2003 was made the subject-matter of the challenge before the Appellate Tribunal Foreign Exchange by the appellants. The appeals by the appellants before the Appellate Tribunal Foreign Exchange were disposed of by the impugned order dated March 2, 2009.

5. Before the adjudicating authority as also before the appellate authority, primarily two points were canvassed on behalf of the appellants. The first point was with regard to the sun set clause of Foreign Exchange Amendment Act, 1999. Such contention was negated by the adjudicating authority as well as by the appellate authority.

6. The second point canvassed by the appellants was that, the appellants took reasonable steps within the meaning of Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations, 1973 and, therefore, they should not be proceeded against for violation of the provisions of the Act of 1973.

7. The adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority rejected the first and second contentions of the appellants. Rejection of the second contention of the appellants will appear from paragraph 17 of the impugned order of the appellate authority.

8. Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual matrix relevant for consideration of the impugned order of the appellate authority dated March 2, 2009 are as follows :

(i) Appellant company exported materials under 3GR on or about March 29, 1996.

(ii) Prescribed period within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act of 1973 initially expired on September 30, 1996. The appellant company did not receive the entirety of the price of goods sold and delivered from the importer.

(iii) Appellant company filed a suit being CS/299/1999 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta on May 17, 1999 seeking recovery of the balance price of goods sold and delivered being the subject-matter of the export.

(iv) Prescribed period was extended by the Reserve Bank of India till May 31, 2000.

(v) Appellant company applied for extension of the prescribed period before the Reserve Bank of India which application was returned due to incomplete documentation.

(vi) The impugned show cause notice dated May 3, 2002 was issued.

(vii) CS/299/1999 was decreed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta on July 8, 2002.

(viii) Show cause notice resulted in an adjudication order dated December 30, 2002.

(ix) Adjudication order dated December 30, 2002 was set aside by the appellate authority on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.

(x) Re-adjudication order dated August 28, 2003 was passed by the adjudicating authority.

(xi) Being aggrieved by the order dated August 28, 2003, the appellants preferred appeals before the appellate authority resulting in the impugned order dated March 9, 2009.

9. The issue in the