AURO LOGISTICS LTD, CHENNAI Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (SRO)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Calling into question the judgment and order dtd. 5/1/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed these appeals.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, in a nutshell, are as follows: On the basis of a complaint dtd. 29/1/2018 lodged under Sec. 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 [for brevity, "the Act of 1999"] by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Hyderabad, the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Southern Regional Office, Chennai, issued a show cause notice dtd. 23/2/2018 to the appellants under Sec. 7 of the Act of 1999 read with Regulations 8, 9(1) and 13 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000 for non-repatriation of the export proceeds.

(3.) Mr.Jayant Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.B.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the appellants, eruditely canvassed his submissions. He submits that by virtue of Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000, [for brevity, "the Rules of 2000"], the authority who issues the show cause notice under Rule 4(1) of the Rules of 2000 alone is competent to adjudicate the case of the appellants. In the case on hand, the show cause notice was issued by the second respondent/Special Director and, hence, no other authority can adjudicate the case of the appellants.