This Order disposes of the Appeals Nos. FPA-FE-77/CHN/2020 filed by M/s. Thomas Cook India Ltd. and FPA-FE-78/CHN/2020 filed by Shri Amit Bhatia (General Manager) against the Order No. ADE/SRO/CEZO-I/15/2020 dated 30.03.2020 (Impugned Order) passed by the Additional Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Chennai. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- on M/s. Thomas Cook India Ltd. for the contravention of Section 10 (4) & 10 (5) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), and Rs. 15,00,000/- on Shri Amit Bhatia for the aforementioned contravention in terms of Section 42 (1) of FEMA. Further penalty of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was imposed on M/s. Thomas Cook India Ltd. for the contravention of Section 3 (a) of FEMA and penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- on Shri Amit Bhatia for the aforementioned contravention in terms of Section 42 (1) of FEMA. Penalty of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant Shri Amit Bhatia, for contravention of Section 10 (6) of FEMA read with Regulation 6 (1) of Foreign Exchange Management (Realization, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulation 2000 in terms of Section 13 (1) of FEMA. The amount involved in the aforementioned contravention was SGD 2944150 equivalent to Rs.14,29,72,117/-.

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 29.03.2019, which was after five years of unexplained delay. Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld. AA did not pass speaking Order with regard to the specific query raised by the Appellants as to how he signed the Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the very next day of filing the Complaint as the Complaint comprised of 22 pages and 1757 pages of additional documents.

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 Amit Bhatia was not in-charge of the affairs of the Company. At the relevant time he was posted at Jaipur and handling Rajasthan and MP. Shri Bhatia was given subsequently the charge as General Manager and Regional Head for South Region only with effect from 15.02.2016. Ld. Counsel prayed for allowing the two Appeals.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Directorate submitted that the Show Cause Notice was received in April 2019 by the Appellants, yet they 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 hea