TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facing adjudication proceedings under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the alleged acts and omissions alleged to have been committed in the years 1958, 1966 and 1970. 3. The petitioners herein, states that the show-cause notices were issued against them somewhere in the month of September, 1973 and June, 1974 requiring them to appear before respondent No. 1 in person or through their Advocate on 10-4-1974. The petitioners failed to appear. No reply was filed on behalf of the petitioners. In spite of this no action was taken by the respondents to act upon the show-cause notices purportedly issued in the month of September, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. In the premises, the further proceeding pursuant to the impugned show-cause notices is wholly arbitrary and deprives the petitioners of their right of equality before the law and violates the guarantee enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioners submit that the long delay of 28 years has effectively deprived the petitioners to effectively explain their case. In the premises, the petitioners submit that even though no period of limitation has been prescribed for completing adjudication proceedings, the reopening of the proceedings after such a long period is invalid and without any effect in law and the same amounts to a proceeding wholly without or in excess of jurisdiction. 9. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he proceedings after a lapse of 27 years. Mr. Rao also pressed into service the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement 2006 (197) ELT 18 (SC) and relied upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Union of India W.P. No. 649 of 2007, decided on 27-7-2007 (unreported) in support of his submission and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Consideration 13. Having heard rival parties, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1, by the impugned action is seeking to adjudicate upon the matters which took place in the years 1958, 1966 and 1970 and the show-cause notices were issued in the year 1973-74. The respondents, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lapse of more than two decades have become stale and any further continuation thereof would be arbitrary? As already stated in support of the contention that the proceedings should be quashed and should not be proceeded with, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Universal Generics (P.) Ltd (supra). In that case there was a delay of 10 years in completion of adjudication proceedings. The challenge was that the consignment of cod liver oil imported by importer having already been cleared ten years before, show-cause notice with regard to confiscation of imported goods was rendered redundant. The learned Division Bench upheld the contention of the petitioners on two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents therein to proceed with the proceedings for adjudication. There was no delay on the part of the respondents. Consequently, the learned Division Bench did not find favour with the submissions made by the petitioners to quash and set aside the adjudication proceedings. 19. Having taken survey of the law holding the field, if one turns to the factual matrix of the case in hand which would unequivocally goes to show that the impugned show-cause notices were seeking to adjudicate upon the matters allegedly took place in the years 1958, 1966 and 1970. The first date of hearing of the show-cause notice was fixed on 10-4-1974. Almost for a period of 27 years, no steps were taken by the respondents to proceed with the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
