S RAMAKRISHNA Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 22nd August 2002, passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED) informing the Petitioner that the adjudication proceedings in respect of the Memo. No. T-4/2-BAN/2000 (SCN I & II) dated 28th February 2000 and 27th March 2001 would be held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'APAR') and accordingly fixing the case for personal hearing before him on 12th September 2002. Also challenged are all the consequential proceedings upon passing of the aforementioned order including the adjudication order dated 17th February 2005, passed by the Special Director finding the Petitioner guilty and levying a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs for contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and the orders dated 7th February 2006 and 19th January 2007, passed by the Appellate Tribunal of Foreign Exchange ('Appellate Tribunal').

(2.) On 30th August 1999 a search was conducted by the officers of the ED at the Chennai residence-cum-office of the petitioner who was the Chairman of M/s Suri Computers Pvt. Limited, Chennai and M/s Sita Electronics, Hyderabad. Summons were issued to him on that date and his statement was recorded. He was subsequently arrested and taken to Hyderabad by the officers of the ED. On 31st August 1999 his statement was recorded again at Hyderabad. He was again arrested but subsequently released on bail.

(3.) On 28th February 2000, the aforementioned show cause notice was issued to him by the Special Director, ED requiring the petitioner to explain why adjudication proceedings under Section 51 FERA should not be held against him for alleged violation of Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of FERA. On 23rd December 2000, the Petitioner replied to the show cause notice. On 27th March 2001 a second show cause notice was issued, requiring the Petitioner to explain why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him for alleged violation of Section 9(1)(c) of FERA. The Petitioner replied to the second show cause notice on 19th August 2001.