Page 167 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] MANAK KALA v. UNION OF INDIA 701

tion that, after suspension of the license there was no further inquiry giving op-
portunity to the respondent before passing the Order-in-Original. The second
proviso to the Regulation 14 states that if Principal Commissioner or Commis-
sioner of Customs is of the opinion that grounds cannot be established prima facie
without an inquiry, he may conduct an inquiry and in the meanwhile may sus-
pend the registration. If suspension of the license takes place then the proviso
contemplates an inquiry This view is taken in another decision in the case of
Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Customs [2015 (315) E.L.T. 194
(Bom.)]. Therefore after suspending the registration of the respondent as an Au-
thorized Courier, an inquiry had to be held giving an opportunity to the re-
spondent which having not been done, there is no error in the view taken by the
Tribunal. In these circumstances, these questions of law do not arise for consid-
eration.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
9. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the application does not survive
and is disposed of.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 701 (Del.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
MANAK KALA
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
CRL.A. No. 529 of 2016, decided on 19-2-2020
1
Penalty under FERA - Seizure of Indian currency - No evidence or ma-
terial placed on record showing that appellant received any amount by order
or on behalf of any person resident outside India - Neither the Adjudicating
Authority (Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate) nor the appellate au-
thority (Special Director, Appeals) applied their minds on the question wheth-
er the statement made by Ashish Jain is voluntary in view of its retraction on
the very next day - Tribunal although accepted that statement made by Ashish
Jain had no evidentiary value and yet upheld the Appellate Order - Statement
of Ashish Jain not to be relied upon having been retracted on the very next day
and being very vague and bereft of any particulars, inasmuch as, it did not
name or describe any person from whom funds had been received and whom
the said funds had been distributed to - Statement also not corroborated by
other material - Consequently, appellant could not be held guilty for violation
of provisions of Section 9(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 on
the sole basis of such statement - Confiscation of the amount of ` 7,95,000 from
the office of the appellant unsustainable and liable to be returned to the appel-
lant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as per Rule 8 of Foreign
Exchange Management (Encashment of Draft, Cheque, Instrument and Pay-
ment of Interest) Rules, 2000. [paras 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Order dated 28-2-2016 in Appeal No. 62/2014 by Appellate Tribunal for For-
eign Exchange.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  167