Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance with Pre-Deposit Order Under FERA 1973; No Justification for Delay Provided.

The ATFE dismissed the appellant's appeal due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order mandated by FERA, 1973. The appellant failed to deposit the penalty within the required timeframe and did not provide justifiable reasons for the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to entertain the appeal, and the proceedings were concluded by consigning the record to the Record Room.

---

---

Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit order for filing appeal under FERA, 1973

The judgment delivered by Km. Vijay Laxmi, Member of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange pertains to an appeal filed against an Adjudication Order imposing a penalty for contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant, Gurmeet Singh, failed to comply with the order directing him to deposit the penalty amount within 30 days. Despite being given multiple opportunities, the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal to explain the non-compliance. The Enforcement Directorate confirmed the service of notice through affixation. The appellant's failure to comply with the pre-deposit order and lack of appearance demonstrate a lack of bona fide on his part.

The appellant's representative argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to the non-compliance with the pre-deposit order, as required under the statutory scheme of the FERA, 1973. Section 52(2) of the Act mandates that any person aggrieved by an order must deposit the penalty amount within 45 days of the order before filing an appeal. The Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the 45-day period if satisfied with the reasons for delay. However, in this case, the appellant did not provide any justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, leading to the conclusion that equity does not favor him, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that under the statutory scheme, appellants must file an appeal simultaneously with the penalty amount unless dispensation is granted. In this case, since the appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order and did not present any valid reasons for the delay, the appeal was dismissed. The record of the appeal was directed to be consigned to the Record Room, marking the end of the legal proceedings in this matter.

---