- (1.) WE have heard both sides.
(2.) THE defence of the department, as argued by the addl. standing Coun sel, appears to be that the Adjudicating Officer does not have the power of review. THE argument is not correct. Section 28 (2) of the Foreign Ex change Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as FEMA for short) specifically confers the power of review (which vests in civil Court under CPC) upon the Appellate Tribunal. Sec tion 16 (5) of FEMA says that same power which has been conferred under Section 28 (2) upon the appellate tribunal shall vest with the Adjudicating Authority also. Thus, the adjudicating authority does have the power of review. The petitioner has filed an ap plication dated 9-1-2005 for review of the adjudication order dated 30- 11-2004 which is said to have been received by the petitioner on 24-12-2004. A copy of the review application has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. Thus, the application for review has been made with in Jess than three weeks of the date of receipt of adjudication order dated 30-11-2004.
(3.) WE have examined the adjudica tion order dated 30-11-2004. The basis of that order is a finding therein that the petitioner (referred in that order as the notice firm) has not taken 'all reasonable steps' to realise the exports proceeds. While it is true that under Sec tion 18 (3) of Foreign Exchange Regula tion Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as FERA), the presumption is that a person who has sold goods has not taken all reasonable steps to recover or-receive the payment for goods and has accord ingly violated Section 18 (2)of FERA, unless that person proves to the con trary; but the adjudication order dated 30-11-2004 does not indicate as to what possible steps the petitioner could have taken in the facts and circumstances of the case given below which he did not take.;