Neuland Laboratories Limited vs The Deputy Director Enforcement ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5168 Tel

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                        AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


               WRIT APPEAL No.1099 of 2014

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



      Heard Mr. T.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Anil P.Tiwari, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

02.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.20495 of 2002 filed by the appellants as the writ

petitioners.

3. Appellants had filed the related writ petition taking

exception to the order dated 22.08.2002 passed by the

respondent. By the aforesaid order, respondent had

imposed penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs on the appellants.

Learned Single Judge for the reasons mentioned in the

order under appeal did not find any justification to

interfere with the impugned order under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and accordingly dismissed the writ

petition.

4. On due consideration, we do not find any error or

infirmity with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

Learned Single Judge has gone through the pleadings and

material papers whereafter he came to the conclusion that

there was violation of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign

Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Learned Single Judge

further held that the due procedure was followed while

passing the impugned order.

5. Learned Single Judge held as follows:

"16. While dealing with the item Nos.1 and 2, the respondent recorded a categorical finding that the exporter totally failed to see that sale value of the exports is received from the place of destination and out of US $2,40,000 only US $ 22,975 has been received and the entire balance is still outstanding. The respondent also recorded a finding in the impugned order that even according to the petitioners, their importer became bankrupt in 1997 where as the exports were made in 1996 and the respondent also found that there is nothing to prove the efforts made by the exporter during the intervening period and the respondent also found that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were pressurizing the buyers and the respondent also recorded a finding that the receipt

of balance from ECGE is of no consequence since the same is only the amount on the account of the claim made by the petitioners and does not represent the proceeds of the exports made by the buyer in Italy. On items No.3 also the respondent in the impugned order categorically recorded a finding that the contention that the petitioners' customer went into deep financial problems is not supported by any evidence. There is also a categorical finding in the impugned order on item No.6 against the petitioners herein."

6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 18.10.2022 vs