1. The factual matrix of the case succinctly, may be noticed that the applicant/appellant by means of the present appeal U/S 52 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with sections 19, 49(4) & 49(5) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 challenged the Impugned/Adjudication Order, dated 28.06.2007, passed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, New Delhi along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal coupled with the application for seeking dispensing with the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, imposed vide Impugned Order No.DD/PK/5/DZ/2007, dated 28.06.2007. The Adjudicating Order, dated 28.06.2007 speaks volumes that the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, New Delhi has imposed a penalty to the applicant/appellant, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) for the contraventions of section 10(5) & 10(6) of FEMA, 1999 read with Regulation 6(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation & Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations,2000 arising out of failure to submit documentary evidence of import into India in respect of remittance of Japanese yen 1014850 dt. 22.08.2001 made to overseas suppliers. The applicant/appellant is the proprietor of M/S Shree Kamla trading Co. & the proprietor firm deals in the business of trading/selling different types of ball bearings & other bearings both of Indian as well as imported ones since the year 1992 as stated in the pleadings of the applicant/appellant.

2. Memorandum cum Show Cause Notice (SCN) No.T-4/14/FEMA/DZ/2004-DD(SS), dated 03.12.2004 was issued to the applicant/appellant. It is also mentioned in the Adjudication Order, dated 28.06.2007 that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was received by the applicant/appellant on 17.12.2004 as per the acknowledgement received in the office & when no reply of show cause notice was received, despite service of the appellant, then it was decided by the Adjudicating Authority to hold the adjudicating proceedings. However, the applicant/appellant appeared on 20.09.2006 & requested for adjournment of the case for filing reply. Hence, the case was adjourned to 05.10.2006, but the applicant/appellant did not turn up thereafter, despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the applicant/appellant for personal hearing.

3. Appeal against the impugned order was thereafter preferred before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange on 12.10.2012. This appeal was filed after a delay of more than 5 years & 3 months from the date of Adjudication Order, dated 28.06.2007, though the applicant/appellant in his pleadings emphasized that the Adjudication Order was received by the applicant/appellant on or about 01.10.2012. It is also pertinent to mention that the present case was put up for hearing before the present regular Bench on 07.08.2013 for the first time & on the said date, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/ appellant sought adjournment on the ground that he wanted to argue the matter regarding pre-deposit. Hence, the case was adjourned to 17.09.2013 on the request of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant. Though, the case was pending for the purpose of hearing arguments on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The interim order, dated 07.08.2013 runs as under:—

Single Bench

Shri Rahul Meena, Legal Consultant along with Ms. Smriti Pradhan, Legal Consultant appears on behalf of Enforcement Directorate while Shri Prasanta Varma, Advocate appeared for the appellant. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that he had filed an affidavit by way of evidence on 7.8.2013, the copy of which already placed on record. The copy of the same has already been given to the respondent. The Counsel for the appellant also requested for further adjournment of the matter in order to argue the