Single-page appeal order where the tribunal notes the appellant's failure to comply with an interim order regarding bank guarantees. The respondent was granted the opportunity to argue non-compliance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT ACT AT NEW DELHI
FPA-FE-102/MUM/2011
Sh. Dinesh R. Shah … Appellant Versus The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai … Respondent
Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared
For the appellant : Mr. Deepender Kumar, Advocate For the respondent : Shri Prashant Pandey, Legal Consultant Ms. Aagam Kaur, Legal Consultant
CORAM JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH : CHAIRMAN SHRI G.C. MISHRA : MEMBER
ORDER 24.08.2017
FPA-FE-102/MUM/2011
As per the provisions of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act 2017, the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (ATFE) has been merged with the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act 1976, w. e. f. 26.05.2017. Files have been received by this Tribunal on 01.07.2017.
In the present case the interim order earlier passed was modified
vide order dated 12th April, 2016. The operative part of the order reads as under:
In view of the peculiar circumstances and in consideration of the fact that of late we have not been insisting on demanding the bank guarantee (s) on the ground that now the banks are insisting on issuing bank guarantee only when the entire amount for which bank guarantee is sought is deposited. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to modify the order dated, 09.01.2015 to the limited extent and direct that in addition to furnishing the bank guarantee (s) of 85% amount in the alternative. The order, dated 09.01.2015 shall stand modified to this limited extent. The modification applications are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. List on 04.07.2016 for reporting compliance of the interim order, dated 09.01.2015.
FPA-FE-102/MUM/2011
Page 1 of 2
Admittedly, the appellant has failed to comply with the said order. The Charted Accountant of the appellant submits that the appellant has filed the writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to quash orders dated 9th January, 2015 and 14th April, 2016. He admits that Stay has not been granted by the Hon’ble High Court. He has informed us that the next date of hearing is fixed on 1st September, 2017. Admittedly, there is no interim order in favor of the Appellant. Thus, the appellant is liable to comply with the order dated 12th April, 2016. One final opportunity is granted to the appellant to comply the same within four weeks otherwise the appeal will be decided in accordance with law for non-compliance of order.
List on 28th September, 2017.
(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman
(G.C. Mishra) Member
New Delhi, 24th August, 2017
‘K’
FPA-FE-102/MUM/2011
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, having failed to comply with an interim order, is liable to file a reply.
Dinesh R. Shah
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai
Manmohan Singh
G.C. Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
