APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-FE-418/DLI/2023 (Exemp.) MP-FE-171/DLI/2022 (Exemp.)

MP-FE-170/DLI/2022 (Stay)

FPA-FE-97/DLI/2022 M/s Trans Global Impex Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Special Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Kishan Rawat, Adv. Ms. Mallika Joshi, Adv.

Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, Adv.

Ms. Smridhi Shram, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Girish Tripathi, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI V. ANANDARAJAN : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

05.08.2025 The appeal has been preferred under section 19 of Foreign Exchange & Management Act, 1999 (in short, the “Act of 1999") to challenge the order dated 01.11.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that vide the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, a penalty of Rs. 60 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant Company M/s Trans Global Impex Ltd. alleging contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973 read with Chapter 7 A 20 (i) of Exchange Control Manual, 1995. The penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on each of the Director for the same contravention.

3. The learned counsel submits that earlier the Adjudicating Authority passed an order on 11.07.2007 which was then challenged by maintaining a writ petition. The issue of delay in initiation of the proceedings coupled with the violation of principle of natural justice was raised. The writ petition No. 11626/2009 was decided by Delhi High Court vide its order dated 16.08.2022. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was set aside with remand of the case. It was with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to pass final order within eight weeks from the date of appearance of the parties on 08.09.2022. The Delhi High Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to look into the documents filed by the appellant. If they are found to be genuine, then allegation may not sustain.

4. The appellant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and produced the documents to show that there was no contravention of section 8 (3) and 8 (4) of FERA, 1973 and Exchange Control Manual, 1995. The documents were sufficient to show that the goods were imported under the four bills of lading. The Adjudicating Authority has not considered those documents in absence of affidavit to show its truthness. The order has been passed in ignorance of the direction of Delhi High Court dated 16.08.2022 and otherwise if an affidavit was required, it could have been called from the appellant. It is more so when four bills of entry corresponding the bills of Lading were filed with the Customs Authority at Kandla in the month of April-May, 1993. The non- consideration of the document is otherwise in violation of the principle of natural justice.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority considered a letter sent by Deutsche Bank AG informing that no bills of lading were submitted by the appellant.

6. The information of Deutsche Bank was not part of the relied upon documents and otherwise a copy of it was not furnished to the appellant. Thus, the Adjudicating Authority committed grave illegality in relying on a document which was not part of record and even a copy of it was not served to the appellant.

7. The impugned order thus deserves to be set aside on all the grounds raised by the appellant.

8. The appeal was contested by the respondent. It is submitted that there was no delay in initiation of the proceedings. The contravention of section 8(3) and 8(4) of FERA, 1973 was no doubt committed in the year 1993 however respondent received information about the contravention from the RBI in the year 2001. Immediately on receiving the information from RBI, the respondent started the proceeding and show cause notice was sent to the respondent in the year 2002 itself. It remained unserved due to the change in the address. The respondent made all efforts to se