1. These appeals have arisen from a common Adjudication Order No. ADJ.4/ DD/JMJ/B/91 dated 10-1-1991 under which various penalties have been imposed on the appellants herein for violation of section 15 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (‘the Act’).

2. The Appellants’ counsel has sent a letter dated 28-5-2001 requesting for adjournment and refixing of hearing at Mumbai instead of Delhi for the reasons that the present cases are small ones and the appellants being poor, are unable to take burden of extra cost of attending appeal at New Delhi.

3. It is noted that these appeals were taken up for hearing out of turn at the request of the appellants’ counsel vide his telegram dated 14-5-2001 pressing for urgent hearing in view of the pending criminal proceedings against the appellants wherein the court refused to stay the proceedings in the absence of any order of this Tribunal staying the operation of the impugned order. This telegram was followed by a letter sent by the appellants’ counsel dated 15-5-2001, requesting this Tribunal to pass necessary orders in the matter immediately.

4. Dr. Shamusuddin, on behalf of the respondent, opposed the request for adjournment and submitted that the counsel is only interested in having an ad interim order. He further submitted that the appellants’ counsel made request for urgent hearing and when the hearing is so fixed at his request, he requested for adjournment and refixing the hearing in Mumbai and prayed for an ad interim order in the meantime. Even the dispensation applications are yet to be heard and disposed of. These appeals pertain to the year 1991 and therefore, Dr. Shamusuddin submitted these should be taken up for hearing straightway on the basis of material available on records. He, further submitted that the appellants have admitted the alleged contravention but are only pleading lack of any mala fide on their part as a mitigating factor. In law, mala fide intention is not an essential constituent of the alleged contravention. Dr. Shamusuddin thus submitted that the order appealed against is perfectly legal and valid.

5. Ad interim orders are not issued as a matter of routine especially when the appeals are fixed for hearing out of turn at the request of the appellant’s counsel. There is nothing in law which warrants holding of hearings at the place of the appellants residence as claimed by the appellant’s counsel.

6. I have given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the appellants in their appeals as well as those made on behalf of the respondent during the hearing of these appeals. The provisions of the Act are directed towards augmentation and conservation of foreign exchange. Where express provisions of the Act are contravened by the appellants, it will not be of much help to them to say that they contravened such provisions of the Act without any bad intention. Once the appellant firm admitted the contravention, it cannot escape the consequences provided in the Act for such a contravention. Accordingly the legality of the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant firm, is not open to question. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the appellants have fully co-operated with the department, which averment has not been controverted by the respondents. The appellants have volunteered all the information available with them. There is a force in the submissions made by the appellants that had they intended to violate the provisions of the Act to make personal profits out of such violations they would not have kept all the records available without any mistake and submitted the same to the authorities when asked for. The appellants have further submitted that there is no past history of contravention and the present case is the first and the only instance of contravention they have committed unwittingly without any mala fide intention. Nor have they made any profit out of this. Had they known the correct requirements of law, they would have certainly