APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI MP-FE-195/CHD/2025 Review IN FPA-FE-67/CHD/2023 M/s Navyug India Ltd. : Review Applicant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh : Respondent Advocates / Authorized Representatives who appeared: For the Review Applicant : Mr. Rohit Bhardwar, Adv.

/Appellant(s)

For the Respondent(s) : Mohd. Wasay Khan, Adv.

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

ORDER

28.10.2025 The Review Application has been preferred against the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal on the application to seek waiver of the condition of pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 ( in short “the Act of 1999”). 2. The Review Applicant has raised many issues touching the merit of the case while appeal is still pending and would be decided subject to satisfaction of the condition of the pre-

deposit for maintaining the appeal.

3. The order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal is sought to be reviewed. The appellant was directed to deposit only 25% of the penalty amount to satisfy the condition of the pre-deposit. It was after considering all the issues raised by the appellant while pressing the application for waiver of condition of pre-deposit. The Review Application has been filed raising the issues which were not raised during the course of the arguments of the application for waiver of condition of pre- deposit. The effort of the Review Applicant is to make out a new case in a Review Application.

4. It is unfortunate that while filing the Review Application, the Review Applicant has made even comment against the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in passing the order dated 09.04.2025 on a Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant bearing CWP No. 9627 of 2025. A direction was given by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana to this Tribunal to hear the application for waiver of pre-deposit within four weeks from the date of production of its order after response from the respondent. The Review Applicant has commented on the order of Hon’ble High Court of Haryana and Punjab in para 3 of the Review Application that contrary to the prayer made by the appellant which was for a direction to provide certified copies of the document and statements but Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana “sadly” passed the order towards disposal of the application for pre-deposit. This shows the conduct of the Review Applicant because perusal of the orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana does not show even whisper in reference to the prayer said to have been made, rather, it was only to seek a direction for early disposal of the application for waiver of the condition of the pre- deposit. The word “sadly” has been used against the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

5. The Review Applicant does not refer to any material irregularity or error apparent on the face of the records in the order sought to be reviewed, rather, during the course of argument, the appellant made a reference of Section 16(6) of the Act of 1999 to indicate that an application moved by the appellant has not been dealt with or decided while no such argument was raised at the time of pressing the application for waiver of the condition of pre-deposit.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Review Applicant was requested to refer the grounds for making a case for review of the order in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and more specifically the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary Land and Building Department & Another versus M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 315 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made analysis of the scope of the review by referring to the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) along with the amendments. The Review Applicant has failed to make out a case to fit i