1. This is an appeal against the Adjudication Order No. ADJ/10/JPR/2001-AD/268 dated 27-2-2001 of Assistant Director of Enforcement, Jaipur, whereby a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of the provisions of section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

2. The appellant is the proprietor of the firm Camelon Exports, Jaipur. The appellant exports handicrafts, carpets, durries and garments, etc. The allegation against the appellant was that without any permission from Reserve Bank of India, he took or refrained from taking action which had the effect of securing the export value to the tune of US $ 42,891 in respect of the exported goods was not received in India and the payments for the imported goods were delayed beyond the prescribed period without any permission of the RBI and thus contravened the provisions of section 18(2) and section 18(3) read with Central Government Notification No. F-1/67/EC. 73/1 and 3 both dated 1-1-1973. In his reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant stated the circumstances in which the said export was made and the action that was taken by the appellant for the realisation of the export proceeds which included a large number of telephone calls to the buyers, visits abroad three times for the purpose of realisation of export proceeds and the appellant had in fact realised a sum of US $ 9,100 as a result of these efforts. The appellant even explored the feasibility of launching legal proceedings for recovery of the balance payment of the export proceeds. It was, however, not found feasible on account of high cost. Accordingly, the appellant claimed that he has taken all the reasonable steps for realisation of the outstanding export proceeds. Thereafter, the adjudication proceedings were held whereupon the impugned order was passed which is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

3. Ms. Sumita Kapil, the learned counsel of the appellant assailed the legality of the impugned order on the ground of being a non-speaking one. She has drawn my attention to that part of the order under the heading ‘Findings and Order’ which, ex facie is very cryptic. It reads as ‘I have carefully gone through records and available material with the department. I find that the noticee company is guilty of violation under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) and they are unable to realise the overdue amount of US $ 28,501 equivalent to Rs. 10,40,000 approximately within the stipulated period. Neither they got any favourable decision from the RBI nor got any extension or write off in any case. Therefore, I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 (One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) on the noticee company (Shri Neeraj Sharma Prop. of Camelon Exports) under section 51 of the Act for the aforesaid contravention’. The learned counsel submitted that there is no finding whatsoever on the action that has been taken by the appellant and the reasonableness thereof. It was contended that the learned adjudicating officer apparently erred in proceedings on the basis of non-realisation of the export proceeds de hors the action taken by the appellant for the realisation of the export proceeds. The learned counsel submitted that the shipment of value of US $ 34,876.67 was shipped in October, 1994 but it reached in March, 1995 due to port strike at Dubai. The appellant was in no way responsible for this delay and had no control over the strike. The unforeseen strike and consequent delay upset the Buyer’s commitments and put the appellant in a highly vulnerable position. The documents were to be presented to the Bank but the buyer feared losses due to the unforeseen delay. He offered to pay US $ 14,500 provided the appellant sent him the documents directly and send another shipment of the value of US $ 8,610. The appellant was thus caught in a situation where he had to continue his business relations with the buyer in order to realise the balance payment. Since