This Order disposes of the Appeals Nos. FPA-FE-79/CHN/2020 filed by M/s Tata Capital Forex Ltd. and FPA-FE-80/CHN/2020 filed by Shri Ashwin Savoor (Regional Manager) against the Order No. JD/CEZO/Z-I/04/2020 dated 23.03.2020 (Impugned Order) passed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Chennai. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) imposed the penalty of Rs. 83,00,000/- on M/s Tata Capital Forex Ltd. for the contravention of Sections 3 (a), 10 (4) & 10 (5) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), and Rs. 83,00,000/- on Shri Ashwin Savoor for the contravention of Sections 3 (a), 10 (4), 10 (5) & 10 (6) of FEMA read with Regulation 6 (1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulation 2000 further read with Section 42 of FEMA. The amount involved in the aforementioned contravention was SGD 1762597 equivalent to Rs. 8,36,25,797/-.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Impugned Order is bad in law, arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice as no opportunity to file a reply on merits and personal hearing to argue on merits was granted. Moreover, under Rule 5 & 6 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 2000, which specifically requires the Ld. AA to give multiple hearings and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts was denied. Ld. Counsel further pleaded that the Complaint under Section 16 was filed on 26.03.2019, which was after five years of unexplained delay. Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. AA has wrongly stated in the Impugned Order that even after advising them to file detailed reply during the course of hearing on 17.02.2020, the Appellants did not file the final reply. Ld. Counsel stated that no such advisory was recorded in the daily order dated 17.02.2020.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Ld. AA should have considered that the Appellant is an Authorised Person as per Section 2 (c) of FEMA. Hence the Appellant would fall under the jurisdiction of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Chapter III of FEMA. The plain reading of Section 13 of FEMA would exclude the Appellants from the levy of penalty under that Section. Even the power of investigation of the Respondent Directorate was restricted only to a person and does not cover an Authorized Person. Ld. Counsel submitted that the 3 categories of contraventions contemplated under Section 13 cannot be simultaneously used for charging a person, much less an Authorised Person. Ld. Counsel stated that the RBI did not find any contravention by the Appellants. Ld. Counsel also argued that there is blatant violation of Rule 4 (1) of FEMA Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules 2000. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants cited the Judgments of Kanwar Natwar Singh vs. Enforcement Directorate (2010) 13 SCC 255 and Shashank Vyankatesh Manohar vs. Union of India & Others 2013 (5) ALL MR 551. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants contended that the individual Appellant Shri Ashwin Savoor was not in-charge of the affairs of the Company. He submitted that the individual Appellant was given charge of the affairs of the relevant Department only with effect from 06.11.2014. Ld. Counsel prayed for allowing the two Appeals.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 29.03.2019 was duly received by every Noticee in April 2019, yet the Appellants filed their replies on 14.10.2019. In spite of getting full opportunity the Appellants filed interim replies and did not submit final reply even till personal hearing was held on 17.02.2020. Ld. Counsel stated that there was no delay since the investigation was being conducted over five years, wherein summons were issued to the Appellants, as well as to the passengers and certain other persons. In fact, Shri Ashwin Savoor appeared before the Investigating Authority on 21.12.2018 and tendered his statement. Therefore, under such