$~67 to 69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16598/2025 Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 IN THE MATTERS OF:

PANKAJ GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Pandey, Ms Akshita Chand, Mr Karan Kumar Advocates.

versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 16631/2025 SHASHANK SRIVATSAVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Pandey, Ms Akshita Chand, Mr Karan Kumar Advocates.

versus ENFOCEMENT DIRECTORATE THR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Advocate.

AND + W.P.(C) 16691/2025 LATE DALIP SRIVATSAVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Pandey, Ms Akshita Chand, Mr Karan Kumar Advocates.

versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THR ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (“SAFEMA”), whereby the applications filed by the petitioners for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amounts have been partly allowed.

2. For the sake of clarity, the name of the petitioner(s), penalty imposed, contravention amount and pre-deposit amount required to be deposited by the petitioners, as per Impugned Order, is extracted as under:

3. Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on the decisions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nimesh Suchde vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., MANU/DE/1266/2009, LPA 203/2009. and Priya Shah vs. Enforcement Directorate,, MANU/DE/1235/2009, LPA 157/2009. submits that the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 („FEMA Act‟) on being satisfied that there exists a prima facie case; and undue hardship, is fully empowered to grant an exemption from pre-depositing penalty amount. 4. He submits that in the instant case, the petitioners have been able to satisfy both the conditions. According to the petitioners, they have a prima facie case in their favour as they have not contravened any of the provisions of the FEMA Act, and the Adjudicating Authority, on the basis of cryptic findings, has wrongly imposed penalties upon them.

5. It is also his case that the business of the petitioners has already been closed down and they are undergoing a financial crisis.

6. The petitioners submit that they are the victims of fraud committed by Ms. V. Sundari of M/s Agna X-Port, Ramesh Kataria and Sunil Garg. They also submit that no action has been taken against said persons, who were instrumental in commission of the said contravention. Additionally, the petitioners submit that they do not have sufficient financial resources to adhere to the directions for pre-deposit of the amount as is imposed in the Impugned Order.

7. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Enforcement of Directorate („ED‟) strongly opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that if the Impugned Order is perused carefully, the same would clearly justify the imposition of 10% penalty amount. He also submits that the Appellate Authority has already bestowed its due consideration in requiring the petitioners to deposit only the 10% of the penalty amount imposed on them by the Adjudicating Authority.

8. Add