APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. FPA-FE-12/HYD/2012 Shri Manoj K. Jain … Appellant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent

2. FPA-FE-13/HYD/2012 Shri Bimal K. Jain … Appellant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Adv.

Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Adv.

CORAM SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER

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 K Jain and Shri Bimal K Jain (“Appellants”) respectively. The Impugned Orders have been issued by Shri SK Sawhney, Special Director, Enforcement Directorate. We have decided to issue a common order as the Impugned Orders arise from a common Show Cause Notice- File No T-4/18-BAN/2002 dated 17.05.2002 (“SCN”)

issued under The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (“FERA”).

The Appeal FPA-FE-12/HYD/2012 has been filed by Shri Manoj K 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 provision of Custom Act, 1962 and ii)Officer who recorded the statement of co-

noticees under the provisions of FERA.

The Appeal FPA-FE-13/HYD/2012 has been filed by Shri Bimal K 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 provision of Custom 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, Shri Rajnish Agarwal or Sanjay Agarwal, and iv) Manager of Centurion Bank.

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.

Ld. Counsel argued that by adducing the oral evidence of Officers who recorded the statements of Appellants and Co-Noticees, it can be determined whether the statement recorded were voluntary in nature. Ld. Counsel therefore pleaded that by being denied the opportunity to cross examine, the Appellants may suffer from irreparable harm, prejudice and injury in the present matter.

Ld. Counsel has relied on the judgments of Calcutta High Court in Ajay Saraogi versus Union of India, 2023 SCC Online Cal 2564; and the judgment of Delhi High Court in Shahid Balwa versus The Directorate of Enforcement in LPA No. 79/2013 dated

29.05.2013 to press his case.

Ld. Counsel 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.

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 process under FERA, it is not necessary that principles of natural justice should be applied in a straightjacket in every case.Ld. Counsel argued that principle of natural justice does not require that cross-examination of departmental officers should necessarily be allowed in the present matter.Ld. Counsel relied on Kanungo & Co versus Collector of Customs, (1973) 2 SCC 438 and Telstar Travels Pvt Ltd versus Enforcement Directorate, (2013) 9 SCC 549 to press his case.Ld. Counsel pleaded to dismiss the present appeals and confirm the Impugned Orders.

We have duly considered th