APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-FE-104/DLI/2024 Exemp.

MP-FE-102/DLI/2024 Stay Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal … Appellant Versus The Enforcement Directorate, Delhi. … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Naytial, Adv. For the Respondent : Mohd. Wasay Khan, Adv.

CORAM JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

03.09.2025 FPA-FE-35/DLI/2024 By this appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (in short `the Act of 1999’), a challenge has been made to the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Special Director. The order was passed by the Special Director on the application moved by the appellant to seek cross-examination of the witnesses and for supply of certain documents indicated in the application. The application moved by the appellant was dismissed by the Special Director and accordingly aggrieved by the order, this appeal has been filed.

2. So far as the appellant is concerned, Show Cause Notice was caused alleging contravention of Section 3(a) and Sections 4,7,8 of the Act of 1999 read with Notification No.GSR/397(E) dated 03.05.2000. It was for illegal dealings in foreign exchange viz acquisition/purchase of foreign exchange worth of US$ 5,30,222/- equivalent to Rs.2,41,47,790/- and for failure to realize export dues equivalent to Rs.2,41,47,790/-. The appellant herein submitted short reply to the Show Cause Notice and then prayed for permission to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, holder of the Passport, bank employees and further cross- examination of other officers in later stage so that the effective reply can be prepared. The cross-examination was thus prayed before filing detailed reply. It was coupled with the demand of documents other than supplied to the appellant as was relied in the Show Cause Notice. The application aforesaid was not accepted by the Special Director and, therefore, the appeal has been preferred to challenge the order.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a fair opportunity to defend the case has been denied by the Special Director by denying cross-examination of the witnesses and even supply of the documents demanded by the appellant. In absence of it, the appellant would not be in a position to defend the case properly. The counsel for the appellant thus prayed for quashing of the impugned order with acceptance of the application filed by the appellant.

4. The appeal was contested by the respondents. It was submitted that the denial of cross-examination is for the reasons given in the impugned order. The allegation against the appellant is largely based on the documents thus the Special Director did not find a case to allow the cross-examination of the witnesses. It was further submitted that even the documents were not relevant to the case thus denied other than those which were relevant and had been supplied. The cross-examination in the summary proceeding before the quasi-judicial authorities cannot be claimed as a right. The appellant in his application did not give reasons to seek cross-examination of the witnesses. The application was submitted simpliciter to seek cross-examination of the witnesses without specifying the reasons thus it was rightly dismissed by the Special Director.

5. So far as the documents are concerned, the arguments were reiterated with a prayer to dismiss the appeal.

6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant to challenge the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Special Director denying the prayer made by the appellant for supply of documents and cross-examination. The counsel for the appellant has cited the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shahid Balwa Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement reported in MANU/DE/1588/2013 to press for an order to allow cross- examination of the witnesses to the appellant. We have considered the su