1986 (11) TMI 328

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rector of Enforcement dated October 29, 1977, whereby a penalty of Rs. 1,18,000 was imposed upon the respondent in this appeal for alleged violation of the provisions of sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)( i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The main contention of the respondent before the Board was that rules of natural justice were breached by the officer in the first instance for the reason that the respondent was not given an opportunity to cross-examine persons who had, pursuant to summons under section 40, given statements to the department. This contention was accepted by the Board. Accordingly, the Board held : "3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the adjudicating officer and remand the case for fresh disposal after givi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 51, section 40 deals with the power to summon persons in connection with the enquiry for giving evidence or making statements and producing documents. In the present case, the respondent was informed of the names of persons who had given statements against him. He was given an opportunity to peruse those statements. He was, however, admittedly not given copies of those statements. Admittedly, he was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the persons who had given the statements, although he had specifically requested for such an opportunity. The Board was impressed by the argument that, in so far as the respondent was not allowed an opportunity to cross-examine the persons who had given statements the enquiry could not be ....