This is an appeal against Adjudication Order No. SDE(R)/IV/05/95, dated 28-4-1995 passed by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for contravention of the provisions of section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on the reasons that appellant took delivery of gold biscuit at Calicut sent by Non-Resident N.P. Ammed of Qatar and by sale, converted the same into Indian Rupees which were further paid to the persons in India as directed, by order or on behalf of N.P. Ammed on payment of commission of Rs. 500 per lakh. The allegation is that the appellant received and paid Rs. 1,21,87,142 in the manner aforesaid. This is an old appeal of 1995, so this lapse of long period justifies full dispensation of the pre-deposit of penalty to the appellant. An order was passed accordingly. Presently, this appeal is taken up for hearing for its disposal on merits.

2. Learned counsel Shri K.A. Jabbar has filed written submissions which are taken on record. On the other side, despite wait of more than 3 months, the respondent has not filed written submissions. Hence, this Order is passed disposing of this appeal without further waiting.

3. A Show Cause Notice No. T-4/22-M/93 (SCN), dated 12-7-1993 was issued to the appellant asking him to show cause why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him on the reasons that he took delivery of the gold biscuits and converted them into Indian Rupees whereafter the money was paid to the persons as directed by N.P. Ammed of Qatar in lieu of commission and, thus, engaged in making compensatory payment. The Show Cause Notice relied on the following documents:—

(i)Search Memo dated 14-1-1993 of the appellant’s residence, including the documents seized.

(ii)Appellant’s Admissional Statements dated 15-1-1993 and 8-3-1993 given before C.E.O., Calicut.

(iii)Statements of recipients of money in India, namely (1) B.V. Moosa, (2) E. Firoz, (3) Smt. K. Pathu, (4) P.P. Aboobacker alias Pakran, (5) V.K. Haridas, (6) K. Mohanan and (7) E.K. Beevi.

(iv)Retraction telegram of the admissional statement with reply thereto.

(v)Retraction letter dated 28-2-1993 of admissional statement; and

(vi)Reply letter dated 22-3-1993 thereto.

4. In reply to the SCN, the appellant controverted the allegations but not agreeing with him, the adjudication proceedings were held and impugned order is passed.

5. Firstly, it is argued that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice because first hearing notice was served giving about 10 days time whereafter the case was again fixed but second hearing notice did not permit more than a week’s time for appearance before Adjudicating Authority which cannot be termed as a reasonable time for preparation under Rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceeding and Appeal Rules, 1973 read with section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Though, request for adjournment was made but Adjudicating Authority proceeded with the matter ex parte without granting further adjournment while impugned ex parte order itself was passed after consuming six months which, otherwise, this period could have been utilized for adjournment and factual hearing of the appellant.

6. Admittedly, the first notice of hearing was served. Thereupon, adjournment was requested and granted which has put the appellant on caution. Thereafter, the notice for subsequent hearing, even if it is served permitting only a week’s time, cannot be termed as granting of unreasonably short time. Therefore, there is no merit in Appellant’s contention in this regard. Further, passing of Adjudication Order and delivery of the same, may be after six months of closing of hearing and without entertaining requested adjournment itself, is not violation of the principles of natural justice. The Rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceeding and Appeal Rules, 1973, section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, does not entitle the appellan