FINAL ORDER

30.01.2025

The following two Appeals FPA-FE-12/HYD/2012 and FPA-FE-13/HYD/2012 have been filed against the Interlocutory Orders dated 21.03.2012 and 14.03.2012 (“Impugned Orders”) by Shri Manoj Kumar Jain and Shri Bimal Kumar Jain (“Appellants”) respectively. The Impugned Orders have been issued by the Ld. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi. We have decided to issue a common order as the Impugned Orders arise from a common Show Cause Notice No. T-4/18-BAN/2002 dated 17.05.2002 (“SCN”) issued under The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (“FERA”), involving common question of law.

2. The Appeal FPA-FE-12/HYD/2012 has been filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Jain against the Interlocutory Order dated 21.03.2012, whereby the Ld. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate had denied the request to seek the cross-examination of i) Officer who recorded the statement of the Appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and ii) Officer who recorded the statement of co-noticees under the provisions of FERA.

3. The Appeal FPA-FE-13/HYD/2012 has been filed by Shri Bimal Kumar Jain against the Interlocutory Order dated 14.03.2012, whereby the Ld. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate had denied the request to seek the cross-examination of i) Officer who recorded the statement of the Appellant under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and ii) Officer who recorded the statement of Appellant under the provisions of FERA, iii) Persons who had purportedly received payments from the Noticees, namely, S/Shri Rajnish Agarwal and Sanjay Agarwal, and iv) Manager of Centurion Bank.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants have pleaded that the Impugned Orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind. Ld. Counsel argued that by denying the request for cross-examination, the Impugned Orders are in breach of principles of Natural Justice, fair play and equity. He contended that it can be determined whether the statements recorded were voluntary in nature or not, by adducing the oral evidence of Officers who recorded the statements of the Appellants and the other Co-Noticees. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded that by being denied the opportunity to cross examine, the Appellants may suffer from irreparable injury and be prejudiced in the present matter.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has relied on the judgments of Calcutta High Court in Ajay Saraogi vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC Online Cal 2564; the judgment of Delhi High Court in Shahid Balwa vs. The Directorate of Enforcement in LPA No. 79/2013 dated 29.05.2013 to press his case. Besides these two judgments Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 in the matter of Ayaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 5306 of 2008 in the matter of Rajiv Arora vs. Union of India & Ors. and in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 in the matter of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata II. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants further relied upon the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 12714 of 2016 in the matter of M/s Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr; judgments of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil Nos. 1854, 1895-1898 of 1992 in the matter of J & K Cigarettes Ltd. & Ors., M/s GTC Industries Ltd. & Ors. vs. Collector of Central Excise & Ors; and in CUSAA 229/2019 and CM No. 53877/2019 in the matter of Additional Director General (Adjudication) vs. M/s Its My Name Pvt. Ltd.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants prayed to set aside the Impugned Orders and direct the appropriate authorities to lead oral evidence by examining the witnesses as requested by the Appellants.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Ld. Special Director issued a well-reasoned order based on proper application of mind. Ld. Counsel argued that due to the nature of the quasi-judicial proceedings under FERA, it is not necessary that principle