VBC 1 FERAST30343.10-12.7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FERA APPEAL ST. NO.30343 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.173 OF 2010 Kusum N.Kasliwal. ..Appellant. versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... WITH FERA APPEAL ST.NO.30345 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.171 OF 2010 Naresh G.Kasliwal. ..Appellant. versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.Pradeep S.Jetly with Mr.Tushar V.Shah and Ms.Nirmala K.Vyas for the Applicant-Appellant. Mr.A.S.Rao for the Respondents. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. July 12, 2011. P.C. : This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange on 11 June 2010. The Tribunal by its impugned order has reduced the penalty imposed VBC 2 FERAST30343.10-12.7 on the Appellants by 50%. The charge against the Appellants was for contravening the provisions of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It is alleged that foreign exchange in the amount of US $ 8,800, Pound Sterling 11,095, Japanese Yen 310000/-, Italian Lira 2750000/-, Canadian $ 280, Hong Kong $ 40, Thai Bhat 390 and French Franc 3,000/- was recovered from the residential premises of the Appellants. The Additional Director imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively on the two Appellants and directed the confiscation of the seized currencies. The grievance of the Appellants is that before the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 11 June 2010, the Appellants had placed on the record of the Tribunal, Written Submissions which have not been considered by the Tribunal. In particular, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants relies upon two circumstances: (i) The Appellants had in paragraph 1 (h) of the Written Submissions sought to explain that all the seized foreign currencies were covered by various Customs Declaration Forms which were produced during the course of investigation; (ii) By an order dated 20 May 2010, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, VBC 3 FERAST30343.10-12.7 Esplanade, Mumbai, had acquitted Shri Naresh G.Kasliwal of an offence punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) read with Section 56(1)(i) of the Act. Counsel submitted that the second circumstance is a factor which should have been taken into account by the Tribunal even though the order passed in a criminal proceeding would strictly speaking not bind the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Having heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants and the Revenue, we are of the view that the interests of justice would warrant a remand of the proceedings back to the Tribunal. In the Written Submissions which have been placed on the record of these proceedings, the Appellants have sought to explain that the seized currencies were covered by Customs Declaration Forms. Whether this is so, is not a matter on which we should express an opinion one way or the other. The Appellants have submitted before the Court that the Written Submissions were forwarded to the Tribunal under cover of an Advocate’s letter. In our view, it would be both fair and proper if the Appellants are permitted to place before the Tribunal the submissions which were VBC 4 FERAST30343.10-12.7 sought to be urged in the Written Submissions afresh. In order to facilitate a fresh decision, and without the expression of any opinion by this Court on the rival submissions, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and restore the Appeal to the file of the Tribunal for fresh decision. The Appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. In view of the disposal of the Appeals, Civil Application Nos.173 of 2010 and 171 of 2010 do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( Anoop V. Mohta, J.)