67. In the context of the above submissions made on behalf of the appellants, I have perused the impugned order. I find that in the said order, the learned adjudicating authority has first discussed the DRI case against the appellants and the statements made by the appellant before the DRI. After discussing the factual background of the case, the learned adjudicating authority observed that from the above it appeared that M/s Shree Lakshmi Trading Company (the proprietorship company of the appellant) had imported goods worth Rs. 6,01,82,311/- as against the declared value of 1,71,62,087/- against 26 bills of entry and had paid the differential amount of Rs. 4,30,20,224/- in cash to the supplier in Japan in Indian Rupees in contravention of Section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999. Accordingly, an SCN dated 28.12.2011 was issued to the said concern proposing imposition of penalty under section 13 of FEMA, 1999. In the next para, namely, para 6 of the same order, it is further observed that as nothing was heard from the noticee, a hearing notice was issued on 07.08.2012. From the above, it is evident that prior to the issue of SCN, the adjudicating authority had already discussed the factual background of the case and come to a prima facie conclusion that M/s Shree Lakshmi Trading Company had contravened the provisions of FEMA, 1999 for which it prima facie appeared to be liable for penalty under Section 13. Since nothing was heard from the side of the appellant in response to the SCN, no new light was thrown upon the subject from the appellant‟s side. Therefore, there was no reason for any change in the opinion formed by the authority and the authority
