IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FERA APPEAL (ST.) NO.29819 OF 2007 FERA APPEAL (ST.) NO.29819 OF 2007 FERA APPEAL (ST.) NO.29819 OF 2007 Shri Ram Anandani )..Appellant V/s The Director of Enforcement & Ors.)..Respondents ---- Shri Madhu M.Patel for the Appellant. Shri A.S.Rao with Y.R.Mishra with Parag Vyas for the respondents. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 25.01.2008. PC 1. Admit. By consent of parties, heard forthwith. 2. The appellant files this appeal impugning a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal dated 25.10.2007 in Appeal No.203 of 1996. By the impugned judgment the Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by the present appellant against an adjudication order passed by the Special Director of Enforcement bearing ADJ/83 to 94/B/SDE/PKA/96/3061. In so far as the present appellant is concerned, the adjudicating officer imposed a fine of Rs.3,15,000/-. 3. The facts of the case indicate that in so far as : 2 : the present appellant is concerned, 2 show cause notices being SCN-III and SCN-IX were issued to him. SCN-III related to purchasing of foreign exchange worth Rs.30 lakhs at unauthorised rates with the intention of transferring the said foreign exchange to one Motichand Beed, a person residing in Hongkong in contravention of Section 8(1) and 8(2) of FERA. This show cause notice was also issued jointly to a co-noticee by name N.P.Mirani. 4. SCN-IX was issued to this appellant alone for alleged acquisition of foreign exchange of various currencies including 3100 French Francs, 800 Australian $, 10,000 Hongkong $, 53 Singapore $, 3 Stg $, 2 Oman Riyals, 100 Canadian $ and TCs of US $ 1350, in contravention of section 8(1) of the FERA. 5. The facts indicates that certain currencies (of the total approximate value of indian Rs.70,000/- was seized from the premises of the present appellant. The record indicates that after the issuance of the show cause notices the present appellant by his letter dated 21.9.1995 requested for supply of copies of documents. These documents were supplied to him by the department under their letter dated 29.12.1995. Thereafter personal hearing was fixed on 3.1.1996. On this date, none appeared for the present appellant. By letter dated : 3 : 2.1.1996 the appellant requested for copies of documents/statements of some more persons and as regards this request the department vide their letter dated 14.3.1996 informed him that such documents could not be given as they were not relevant to the charges contained in the two show cause notices issued to him. The next date for personal hearing then was fixed on 29.3.1996. On 29.3.1996 the appellant remained absent. The matter was then adjourned to 21.5.1996. On this date also the appellant remained absent. 6. It is now sought to be contended before us that rules of natural justice were not followed. It is contended that the documents sought from the adjudicating authorities were not given. There is no substance in this contention. As noted in the order itself, the documents relied upon in the two show cause notices issued to the present appellant were provided under letter dated 29.12.1995. His further demand for additional documents was also dealt with by the office letter dated 14.3.1996. The letter dated 29.12.1995 is not annexed to this petition. The record further indicates that numerous chances were given to the appellant to remain present for personal hearing but he has not availed of any of these chances. : 4 : 7. It was sought to be contended by the appellant that he had given a letter dated 14.5.1996 which was received by the department on 17.5.1996 and his contentions on merits, mentioned in this letter were not taken into account. On perusing this letter dated 14.5.1996, we find that for the first time the appellant sought to contend that the foreign exchange has been brought into the country by 5 persons who were related to him, at the time of his father’s death. No documentary evidence is produced to support this contention. The affidavits of these 5 relatives were not produced or relied upon. In fact, no specific ground in this regard can be found in the present petition. 8. It was then sought to be contended that an additional affidavit dated 15.1.2007 setting out aforesaid facts relating to the merits was also filed before the Tribunal but was not considered in its judgment by the appellate Tribunal. We find that the appellant has not made any application for additional evidence. Even otherwise, as aforesaid his contention as regards his relatives bringing money seized is not believable or supported by any evidence. : 5 : 9. We however, find that the only amount which was actually seized from the present appellant was of approximate value of Indian Rs.70,000/-. The said monies are admittedly with the authorities. While confirming the findings, we direct that in the circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if the penalty amount is reduced from Rs.3,15,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. With only such modification, rule made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)