1. These three appeals are filed on 6-10-2004 along with an Application for Condonation of Delay against a common Adjudication Order Nos. DD(A.A.)/DZ/151/2003/1212, 1213 and 1214 dated 30-9-2003 passed by Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 against appellant company in Appeal No. 1024/2004 and Rs. 25,000 each against other two appellant directors in appeal Nos. 1025/2004 and 1026/2004 for contravention of provisions of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of FER Act, 1973 on the reasons that after obtaining remittance of foreign exchange of US $ 63876 (equivalent to Rs. 20,19,129 approximately) for the purpose of import of goods, the appellants failed to utilize the remitted foreign exchange for importing the goods and file proof thereof.

2. The adjudication order is served on the appellants on 9-10-2003 but the appeals are filed on 6-10-2004 along with an application for condonation of delay stating that the appellants in Appeal Nos. 1025 and 1026/2004 were unable to file the appeals within 45 days, which is the statutory permitted period, because there were unavoidable family problems due to death of their father and serious illness of their mother. It is further argued that appellants could not arrange court fee of Rs. 10,000 each for filing of these three appeals which factor aggravated the problem and caused substantial delay in filing these appeals. The oral arguments are heard on the question of condonation of delay. Also both sides have filed their written submissions which are taken on record.

3. This is an admitted position that these appeals have been filed after expiry of 363 days from the date of receipt of adjudication order on 9-12-2003. From this total period of 363 days the permitted time of 45 days under the provisions of section 19(2) is required to be excluded or reduced. Thereafter a delay of 318 days is clearly available. On this aspect of the matter there is no controversy. Hence the question has arisen whether the delay of the period of 318 days can be condoned under the circumstances brought out by the appellants in their application for condonation of delay.

4. The law with regard to condonation on the basis of "sufficient cause" is well-settled. As per "Judicial Dictionary" by K.N. Aiyer the word "sufficient" means "adequate, ‘enough’, ‘as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended". It embraces no more than that which provides a plenitude for doing a thing and when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of the existing circumstances. This has to be viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men.

5. The main ground advanced for condonation of delay is that the father of the appellants expired which affected the mental preparedness of the appellants to file these appeals. However, the date of death of the father is not disclosed. Further, it is contended that unavoidable family problems like mother’s illness along with bereavement of father continuously haunted the appellants and made them incapacitated. In this regard medical certificate dated 5-8-2004 issued by Dr. S.K. Bakshi, MBBS, MD is filed along with certain other reports of a Medical Diagnostic Centre. By another certificate dated 27-4-2004 admission of the mother of the appellants in the hospital is demonstrated. These and other medical certificates filed along with application for condonation of delay show that the appellants’ mother is undergoing treatment from Apollo Hospital, New Delhi right from January 2004 onwards but there is nothing on record to show that mother remained admitted till October 2004 when these appeals are filed. The records also show that mother’s hospitalization is in April 2004 but the adjudication order was admittedly served on the appellants in October 2003. The period between October 2003 (when the impugned order was served) and April 2004 (when the mother was admitted in Apollo Hospital) is around six months. During