S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) A short but an interesting question as to whether a Special Director appointed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, the Act) himself can prefer an appeal before the High Court against an order passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (for short, the Board) arises for consideration herein.
(2.) Before embarking upon the said question, we may briefly state the fact of the matter. Appellant herein was served with a show cause notice by the Enforcement Directorate on 04.07.1991 for alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(b, 9(1)(d) and 9(3) of the Act, alleging, inter alia, that during the period June 1989 to July 1990, he caused to remit various payments aggregating to Rs. 2,81,73,700/- to India from United Arab Emirates (UAE) through persons other than authorized dealers. Cause was shown thereto by the appellant. The Special Director, however, adjudicated the matter and by an order dated 06.10.1993 imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the appellant in terms of Section 9(3) of the Act. Penalty was also imposed on one Shri Champalal Singhvi.
(3.) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Board. The Board allowed the said appeal, inter alia, holding : "12. It would appear from the above discussion that neither in the documents seized from Champalal Singhvi and those seized from the premises of Yousuf Kazia, nor in the statements of Champalal Singhvi and Kazia Brothers, there is any evidence of actual remittance of any amounts from abroad as alleged, even though prima facie that evidence may indicate distribution of amounts in India on the instructions from persons abroad....... It was further observed : "......In our opinion, in view of the conclusions already made by us that the charge of contravention of section 9(3) cannot be made out on the basis of the facts as assumed by the Department, it is not necessary to consider other grounds on which the adjudication order has been impugned in this appeal. We are of the view that consideration of those grounds would amount to expressing opinion in respect of the evidence which tends to implicate Kazia Brothers and Champalal Singhvi and, therefore, any pronouncement on those grounds should be avoided if possible. ;