1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FERA NO. 87 OF 2006 (FIRST APPEAL NO. 716 OF 1989) The Director of Enforcement Govt. of India ...Appellant Vs M/s Schokhi Industries Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. ---- Mr. Mr. Y.R. Mishra, for the Appellant. Mr. Nitin Goel, Director of Respondent-Company in person. --- CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Goel, Director of Respondent-Company. Perused Appeal. 2. By an Order dated 11.03.1986 passed by the Addl.Director of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973), the penalty has been imposed on the Respondent-Company and Shri Narottam Goyal, Managing Director of the said Company. 2 3. The aforesaid order was a subject matter of challenge in two appeals before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, one being appeal nos.270 of 1986 and another bearing no. 141 of 1988. The Tribunal was pleased to allow the appeals recording following findings: “The Authority below was also somewhat confused about the real location of M/s Pan Pacific Shipping and Trading Company of Tokyo (Japan) which has been wrongly stated at various places as situated in Hongkong. This is not very material but shows that the Authority below was not sure about the nature of the alleged contravention, the gravity thereof and did not even choose to specify separate penalties for the three different contraventions. The charge in question is not proved satisfactorily against the appellants. So, the findings in the impugned order are set aside.” Further, the aforesaid order further reads as under: “(9) In this connection, my attention has also been drawn to the fact that the Authority below has totally failed to appreciate the real nature of these transactions inasmuch as he did not even bother to distinguish between the different export transactions to two different foreign buyers and that case has been treated as if it was an under invoicing to the extent of US $.6400/- in respect of some common transactions. The confusion in this behalf is no doubt apparent from the bare reading of the impugned order itself, because of this confusion, the Authority below has not bothered to appreciate the true nature and import of these two transactions in question and hurriedly imposed a small penalty on the appellants holding them responsible for the alleged contravention 3 without proper analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding these transactions. (10) In the net result the appeal succeeds. The findings of the A.O. in regard to these show cause notices are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The findings as well as the penalties imposed on the appellants are set aside.” 4. Not satisfied with the aforesaid Order, the Director of the Enforcement has preferred two appeals, one against the Company and another against the Managing Director Shri Goel involving identical facts and common grounds of challenge. 5. So far as an appeal which is preferred against Shri Goel, Managing Director is concerned, same was dismissed for non-compliance of the conditional order, with the result the impugned order has become final and conclusive against the Revenue so far as Mr. Goel is concerned. 6. So far as the present appeal is concerned, we were taken to the impugned order, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for three reasons. Firstly, there cannot be two inconsistent orders on the same fact situation based common legal ground. Secondly, dismissal of the appeal against the Managing Director has virtually resulted in concluding common the issues raised by the Revenue in the appeal against it, and, thirdly, the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact based on the appreciation of evidence with which no fault can be found. 4 7. In the above circumstances, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Order accordingly. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)