AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.388 OF 2009 M/s. Jeeves Impex & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. The Union of India .... Respondents Mr. Seshagopalan with Mr. G.R. Agrawal for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bhardwaj for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 17TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The petitioners have challenged Order dated 16/10/2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange directing AJN 2 the petitioners to deposit 50% of the penalty imposed on them as pre-deposit. 3. It appears that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners stating that the petitioners had exported readymade garments to companies in Venonyesla and USA, Germany as per details given in the Annexure-A, and failed to secure the full exports proceeds / balance of US$ 83,771.83, D.M. 4022.40 and Rs.33,867/- of the goods from the country of final destination of the goods within the stipulated period of six months from the date of export. 4. The show cause notice was adjudicated and vide Order dated 19/6/1997, the demand was confirmed and penalty of Rs.11 lakhs was imposed on the petitioners. The petitioners filed appeal in which they made an application for dispensation of pre- deposit. The impugned order is passed on the said application. 5. We have heard Mr. Seshagopalan, learned counsel AJN 3 appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed a summary suit in this court against (1) P & O (Indian Agencies) Private Limited, (2) M/s. Eximplus Representaciones C.A. Venezuela and (3) Union Bank of India, to realize the export proceeds. 7. The petitioners have also approached several authorities for help, the details of which are set out in the reply to the show cause notice sent on 10/2/1997. It appears that the Ministry of Surface Transport has also considered the application of the petitioners and suggested some remedial steps. In our opinion, these facts should have been considered before passing the order. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter must be remanded for de novo consideration. Hence, we pass the following order: 8. The impugned order dated 16/10/2008 is set aside. The AJN 4 matter is remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]