APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-PMLA-11777/MUM/2023 (Exemp.)

MP-PMLA-11775/MUM/2023 (Stay)

FPA-PMLA-5895/MUM/2023 M/s Sanghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai. … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the appellant : Mr. Rajeev Aswathi Mr. Swetab Kumar Mr. Sajal Yadav, Advocates For the respondent : Mr. Ritesh Agrawal Ms. Priyanshi Sharma, Advocates CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN

ORDER

28.08.2025 By this appeal preferred under section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short the Act of 2002), a challenge has been made to the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the retention of the seized articles which includes the gold in the hands of the appellant.

2. The learned counsel at the outset submitted that provisional attachment order in reference to the gold seized from the appellant has been confirmed without causing a notice. It is in violation to section 8 (1) of the Act of 2002 and more so when the statement of the seized properties was disclosing the details of the seized record/ property in the name of the appellant for 57.5 KG gold.

3. In absence of a notice to the appellant, not only there was a violation of principle of natural justice but section 8 (1) of the Act 2002 and accordingly the impugned order qua the appellant deserves to be set aside with remand of case to the Adjudicating Authority to provide an appropriate opportunity of hearing after causing show cause notice, as contemplated under section 8 (1) of the Act of 2002.

4. The counsel for the appellant at this stage did not press any other argument. It is in view of the fact that he would contest the show cause notice before the Adjudicating Authority and raise all the relevant issues there itself. The prayer was however made that afresh adjudication should not be driven by the impugned order.

5. The appeal was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It was submitted that an opportunity was given to the partners of the appellant Company to file an application under section 8 (2) of the Act of 2002 but despite the opportunity aforesaid and even reiterated subsequently, the partners of the appellant Company did not avail the benefit. In view of the above, a case is not made out for remand of the case after causing interference in the impugned order. A specific reference to section 8 (2) of the Act of 2002 was given to indicate that any aggrieved person may enter appearance before the Adjudicating Authority and in the instant case, an opportunity of hearing was provided to the partners representing the Company, thus no illegality has been committed in passing the impugned order. A specific reference to the proviso to section 8 (2) of the Act of 2002 was given which provides that if the property is claimed by a person, other than a person to whom the notice has been given, such person shall also be given an opportunity of being heard to prove that property is not involved in money laundering. The appellant was having an opportunity to invoke proviso aforesaid but failed to do so and accordingly prayer was made not to accept the only argument raised by the appellant.

6. I have considered the rival submission for the parties and perused the record carefully. To appreciate the argument of the counsel for the parties, it would be gainful to refer section 8 of the Act of 2002 and for that section 8(1) and 8 (2) are quoted thus:-

Section 8

8. Adjudication - (1) On receipt of a complaint under sub-section (5) of section 5, or applications made under sub-section (4) of section 17 or under sub-section (10) of section 18, if the Adjudicating Authority has reason to believe that any person has committed an [offence under section 3 or is in possession of proceeds of crime], it may serve a notice of not less than thirty days on such person calling upon him to indicate the sources of his income,