1994 (6) TMI 160

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner should not be made. As per the impugned notice the abovesaid foreign currencies seized are: (a)US $ 1,92,493, (b)Saudi Riyals 5,44,000, (c)Qatar Riyals 12,000, (d)UAE Dinar 70,500, and (e)Singapore $ 11. The show-cause notice is thus for adjudication under section 51 against the contravention of the provisions of the Act said to have been committed by the petitioner for determining the quantum of penalty levied under section 50 of the Act. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner made only three submissions before me. Even with reference to the first submission, when I brought to his notice the recent judgment of Kanakaraj J. in K.M.A. Abdul Kabeer v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate [1995] 82 Comp. Cas. 526 (Mad.) (Wr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... affidavit. I am unable to accept this contention also. When the impugned notice itself states why adjudication proceedings as contemplated under section 51 of the Act should not be held against the petitioner for the contraventions in question, it goes without saying that the Special Director has issued the said show-cause notice only as adjudicating officer. The term "Adjudicating Officer" is also defined under rule 2(b) of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1974, as "director or any officer empowered to adjudicate cases under section 50". Section 3 of the Act, while mentioning specifically certain classes of officers of enforcement in clauses (a) to (d) therein, mentions in clause (e) thereof as follows: "such other class of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. But, in the said W.M.P. order, Lakshmanan J., after setting out the arguments made by learned counsel in extenso, finally only concludes, without any specific discussion, thus: "A case is made out for grant of stay... Hence, there will be interim stay for four weeks ..." In the above circumstances, the said order in W.M.P. can have no weight in deciding the question before me, viz., whether the present writ petition deserves admission. No doubt, the said interim order passed in the above-said W.M.P. was extended beyond four weeks and until further orders by Kanakaraj J. by his order dated March 1, 1994. It is significant that this order dated March 1, 1994, is also very much before his own above-referred to final order dated April 21, 19....