1. This order of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange is delivered by Dr. S.D. Singh, Member.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa, in Writ Petition No. 69/2013 (in short Writ Petition), in which relief inter alia was sought to direct this Tribunal to dispose of Appeal Nos. 98-99/2011 in file No.T-4/16-B/SDE/RAJ/2010 in the matter of order No. ADJ/19/B/SDE/RAJ/2011/FEMA/4043 dated 17-06-2011 as early as possible, has directed this Tribunal in paragraph 4 of the order dated 06-08-2013 to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any case on or before 30-11-2013. The appeal No. 98/2011 was listed before this Tribunal on 19-9-2013 and after hearing the case was reserved for orders.

2. Appeal No.99/2011 was not listed with the appeal No.98/2011 and the same was listed on 7-11-2013 for the first time before this Bench with the report of the Registry dated 30-10-2013 explaining therein that the appeal No.99/2013 is listed for the first time for hearing before the Tribunal as the file was not traceable. The said file most probably has been mixed up with other files during the shifting process of this Tribunal. The registry has now re-constructed the file after getting the papers from the Enforcement Directorate as well as from the Appeal No.98/2011. The appeals No.98/2011 and 99/2011 are connected appeals which have been filed against the common order. The appeal No.98/2011 has already been heard and the same is reserved for order. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Goa Bench vide their order dated 6-8-2013 has directed the Tribunal to dispose of appeal Nos. 98/2011 and 99/2011 expeditiously and in any case on or before 30-11-2013. It has further been specified in the said report of the Registry that another court fee in appeal No.99/2011 of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited vide D.D.No. 000109 dated 09-08-2011. When the matter was listed on 7-11-2013 before this Tribunal, in spite of hearing notice dated 25-10-2013 neither the appellant nor her advocate appeared and the matter was heard ex parte. The ALA appearing for the respondent stated regarding appeal No.99/2011 that in para 7 of the appeal No.98/2011 the appellant company and its director Ms. Yulia Yaskova aggrieved by the impugned order preferred an appeal. It is apparent from the appeal No.98/2011 that only one fee has been deposited. Another fee has been separately deposited as such the Appeal No.99/2011 is concerned to Ms. Yulia Yaskova, director of the company. As such the facts of Appeal No.99/2011 are same as the facts are of Appeal No.98/2011. The Ld. ALA was also directed to submit his written arguments on the next date of hearing and the matter was fixed for hearing on 13-11-2013. The Tribunal also directed to issue fresh notices to all concerned. Thereafter, the matter came up before this Tribunal for hearing on 13-11-2013. On 13-11-2013 also neither the appellant nor her advocate appeared and the matter was heard ex parte. The Ld. ALA, Shri G.N. Ghosh appearing for the respondent filed a copy of the W.P. No.369/2013 to clarify the position as by whom the appeal No.99/2011 has been filed in this Tribunal. Relying on paragraphs 6 and 8 and the exhibits 'C & D' to the said Writ Petition and further relying on paragraph 7 of appeal No.98/2011, he submitted that the appeal No.98/2011 has been filed by the company and appeal No.99/2011 has been filed by Ms. Yulia Yaskova director of the company as is clear from paragraphs 6 & 8 of the Writ Petition that there are no separate appeals and a single appeal is filed under registered No. 98-99/2011. He further clarified that in para 8 of the Writ Petition only for appeal singular number is used which is registered under No.98-99/2011 and in exhibit ' D' which is memorandum of the parties appellants have been shown as joint appellants. As such two appeal Nos.98-99/2011 refer to single set of appeal number 98-99/2011 because there are two appeals, one is on behalf of the company and another is on behalf of Ms. Yu