PRIYA SHAH Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (original petitioner in the writ petition) in the present appeal is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10th February, 2009, whereby the learned single Judge has only partially waived the amount that the appellant was required to deposit towards pre-deposit for his appeal to be heard.

(2.) THE allegations of the respondent Enforcement Directorate were that the appellant was guilty of contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA.), particularly Section 8 (1). Apparently her father, Late Satnam Shah opened accounts in Swiss Banks as also in the Midland Bank, (later HSBC.), in the U.K. According to the Enforcement Department, the appellant was the joint holder of one account and also was under a duty upon the death of her father in terms of Section 8 (1) of FERA to repatriate the funds in the account to India through banking channels. The adjudicating authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.75 crores stating that the appellant had not complied with the duty cast on her to follow the procedure prescribed by FERA and the concerned notifications issued in that regard.

(3.) TO be entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 19(1) of FEMA, the applicant must make out a case that the deposit of the penalty would cause undue hardship to such person and in such circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to special conditions as it may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the realization of penalty.