DY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE MADRAS Vs. NAINA MARICAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point involved in this writ appeal is whether, the show cause notice issued under R.3(1) of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules 1974, framed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, is or is not a notice of the commencement of adjudication proceedings under S.51 of that Act.

(2.) The respondent filed W.P. 7823 of 1987 on the averment that on 21-5-1986, the Enforcement Officials seized from his residential premises a sum of Rs. 1,60,000, Indian Currency belonging to him, for alleged violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and that S.41 of the Act permits retention of the amount beyond a period of one year if proceedings either under S.51 of the Act or prosecution under S.56 of the Act had been commenced and in (case he) received any (no) show cause notice about any adjudication proceedings, that the appellants department could no longer retain the currency and that, therefore, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to them, directing them to return the currency to him.

(3.) The appellants resisted the action, admitting that the seizure was made on the day alleged, but contended that the seizure was for contravention of the provisions of S.9(1)(b) of the Act, that adjudication proceedings under S.51 of the Act had really been commenced, since even on 8-5-1987 i.e. within a period of one year a show cause notice, as contemplated under R.3(1) of the adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) had been issued and since the respondent evaded service, the notice was served in the manner provided for in law and that in view of the fact, that even on 8-5-1987 a show cause notice was issued, the enabling provision of S.41 of the Act justifies their retention of the property beyond the period of one year.