1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.925 OF 2009 M/s. Yogesh Brothers ...Petitioners. v. The Special Director of Enforcement ...Respondents. Mr.Amit Balani with Ms.Shilpa Balani, advs. For the Petitioners. Ms.J.N.Pandhi with Mr.Rajinder Kumar and Mr.P.Khosla, advs. For the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 1st July , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 13th January, 2009 whereby the appeals were dismissed for non compliance of the pre-deposit order dated 20.10.2008. Erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board noted that the petitioners herein applied for waiver of pre-deposit which was yet to be disposed off. The order was stayed and the application for dispensation was to be heard subsequently. Thereafter, on 20th October, 2008 the Appellate Tribunal was pleased to pass an order directing the appellants to deposit their 2 respective penalties within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the appeals would be dismissed. Though the petitioners herein were served, they chosen not to remain present. Hence, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte. As there was failure on the part of the petitioners herein to pre-deposit, the impugned order came to be passed in the absence of the petitioners herein, though the order noticed that they were served by a notice. 3 Subsequent to the order of pre-deposit, petitioners herein had applied for recall of the order of pre-deposit on the ground that different banks have certified that no outflow of the foreign exchange had occurred. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that there is no power of review under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act as also there is no ground of review. 4 Law as laid down by the Supreme Court is now well settled that procedural review is inherent in every Court or the Tribunal. Under this procedural review, the Tribunal has the power to set aside an ex-parte order. This has been reiterated by this Court on several occasions. 5 At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel produced a xerox copy of the certificate dated 3 18.3.1985 issued by the Syndicate Bank in Ref.No.174/GEN/85, we have chosen to take the same on record as the same indicates that a sum of US $ 1,99,907 had been remitted in the account of that bank which was 100% of the negotiated amount of the documents drawn under the Letters of Credit. It is true that this document was not before the learned Tribunal. 6 Having given consideration to the fact that petitioners were ex-parte though to some extent, it was fault of the petitioner, the ends of justice would require on the face of the document dated 18.3.1985 that both the orders of pre-deposit and subsequent order of dismissal be set aside and the appeal be restored to the file. 7 Considering the certificate dated 18.3.1985, orders of pre- deposit and dismissal of appeal set aside. Pre-deposit dispensed with. Tribunal to dispose off the appeal on merits. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)