Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

J. Ibrahim Versus Special Director, Enforcement Directorate New Delhi

2000 (7) TMI 979 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Writ Petition No. 9835 of 1993 and W.M.P. No. 15141 of 1993 - Dated:- 26-7-2000 - M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Shri A. Sheikpeer for K.A. Jabbar, for the Petitioner. Shri K. Kumar, A.C.G.S.C., for the Respondent. ORDER Ibrahim, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, the respondent herein, to permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses as requested by him in his reply to the show .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Sheriff also gave a statement implicating the petitioner Ibrahim to the effect that those documents were handed over to him by the petitioner for handing over the same to a person at Singapore. (B) In a follow-up action, the officers searched the room of the petitioner and seized the Indian and foreign currencies, gold chains and gold rings etc. The petitioner also had given a statement that at the instance of one Allahudeen of Malaysia, he used to collect dollars from the persons working i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 4-8-1992 to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why Indian currency, foreign currency and gold chains under seizure should not be confiscated to the Government and as to why personal penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner. (D) In response to the above show cause notice, the petitioner had sent a reply dated 10-3-1993 to the respondent denying the allegations contained in t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was posted for personal hearing on 21-5-1993. At that stage, the petitioner thought it fit to file this writ petition seeking for the mandamus. 3. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decision reported in 1987 Excise & Customs Cases, Volume 13, page 248 = 1987 (31) E.L.T. 902 (Ker.) Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Fr. Alfrad James Fernandez is that the petitioner has got a right to appear in the adjudication proceedings in pers .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ulation Rules, 1974, the petitioner cannot claim as of right for cross-examination of the witnesses, especially under Rule 3 of the said Rules, the Evidence Act would not apply to the adjudication proceedings and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He would also point out that when there is a provision under Section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 providing appeal against the orders, the petitioner ought not to have come before this Court by filing this writ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cessary, the hearing may be adjourned to future date and in taking such evidence, the adjudicating officer shall not be bound to observe the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). 7. Under those circumstances, the adjudicating officer shall give required particulars to the petitioner to put-forth his case by way of giving an explanation to the show cause notice and in view of the specific bar put on Rule 3, the petitioner cannot, as of right, compel, the Adjudicating Autho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1486 (S.C.) = AIR 1972 S.C. 2136 (Kanungo & Co. v. Collector, Customs, Calcutta) :- 12 We may first deal with the question of breach of natural justice. On the material on record, in our opinion, there has been no such breach. In the show cause notice issued on August 21, 1961, all the material on which the Customs Authorities have relied was set out and it was then for the appellant to give a suitable explanation. The complaint of the appellant now is tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version