SHAILENDRA SWARUP Vs. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Modi Xerox Limited was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956, in the year 1983; 17 remittances were made by this company through its banker Standard Chartered Bank wherein foreign exchange has been released for import of certain goods for which the exchange control copy of the bill of entry had not been submitted either to the authorised dealer or to the Reserve Bank of India. This was during the period 12.6.1985 to 21.11.1985.

(2.) On 19.2.2001 show cause notice/memorandum had been issued by the Enforcement Directorate to 21 persons including the present petitioner who has been arrayed as respondent No. 12 i.e. Shailendra Swarup to show cause as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the FERA) be not initiated. On page No. 3 of the said document while enumerating the names of notice's as per annexure B it had been averred that the said persons, including present petitioner has been responsible/supervisor/in charge of the said company/firm for the conduct of the business of the firm/company at the relevant time when the afore stated import was made as such he/she/they has/have rendered himself/herself/themselves liable to be proceeded against under Section 50 of the FERA. The last page of the document specified that the notice has been addressed to the company arrayed as No. 1 and the present petitioner Shailendra Swarup arrayed as No. 2.

(3.) Reply to this notice was returned on 26.3.2001. This reply was given by the company through Mukesh Dugar, its Company Secretary. The allegations in the show cause notice had been refuted; it was averred that the adjudication proceedings be dropped as the transactions are more than 15 years old and it would be inequitable to continue with these proceedings, being against the principles of natural justice. Para 8 of the reply had detailed the list of directors of the company at the relevant time which included the name of the present petitioner Shailendra Swarup at serial No. 9. It is relevant to state that there was no averment made in this reply that the present petitioner was not a full time director or was not in charge of the affairs of the company.