UMED SINGH BAID Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.09.2005 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi (respondent No. 3) in Def. Appeal No. D -129/05, wherein respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to rectify the deficiency of court fees in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules 2000.

(2.) THE facts as emerging from the present petition are that on the basis of information that one Mr. Parasmal Rampuria who was a Director in M/s. GRML Exports Limited had been indulging in transactions in violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA'), a search was conducted on 24.05.1996 under Section 37 of the FERA, at both residential as well as office premises of Mr. Parasmal Rampuria. During the course of the search operations, several documents were seized from the above premises. On the basis of the documents so seized, statement of Mr. Parasmal Rampuria was recorded on 24.05.1996 and 25.05.1996 under Section 40 of FERA. In his statements, Mr. Parasmal Rampuria alleged that he received an amount of Rs. 49,00,000/ - (Rupees Forty nine lakhs) from the petitioner in respect of a transaction of USD 2,53,196,93 on 25.02.1996. In addition to the above amount a further sum of Rs. 79,90,000/ - (Rupees Seventy nine lakhs ninety thousand) was received by Mr. Parasmal Rampuria.

(3.) ON the basis of the statements of Mr. Parasmal Rampuria summons were issued to the petitioner on 23.04.1997 bearing number T3/106/Cal/96/PKS/3595. Responding to the said summons the petitioner appeared before the Enforcement Officers on 24.04.1997 and the statements of the petitioner were duly recorded denying all allegations against him. On 29.05.2002, based on the alleged statement of Mr. Parasmal Rampuria a show cause notice was received by the petitioner from the respondent No. 2. Since the said show cause notice did not contain certain documents, a request was made by petitioner's Advocate vide letter dated 11.06.2002 for the supply of those documents and the said documents were subsequently supplied to him. Vide letter dated 04.10.2002, the petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 29.05.2002. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner to cross -examine Mr. Parasmal Rampuria, an opportunity of personal hearing was offered to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was never permitted to cross -examine Mr. Parasmal Rampuria. Also the request under Section 72 of FERA that required the prosecution to jointly proceed with Mr. Parasmal Rampuria was also not acceded to. Despite the above request having been made and a detailed reply to show cause notice denying all the allegations and charges, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.06.2005 imposed an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ - (Rupees Twenty lakhs) as penalty under Section 50 of FERA against the petitioner.