TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orcement), Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Mumbai, is authorized by the law to adjudicate the show cause notice. 2. The procedural law which authorized him was the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'FERA'). 3. It is alleged that the information was received by the Mumbai Zonal Office of the Enforcement Directorate from the Income Tax Department, Mumbai. A search was carried out on the basis of this information and the search was carried out in the premises of two commercial entities. The search was also carried out so as to obtain the details in regard to the business of the sister concerns. Even the residential premises of Shri Dhirajlal Nanji Shah @ Dhirubhai Shah of M/s. Time Video Group of Companies, was s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner Ramesh N. Shah for remitting or having caused to remit from Dubai Rs. 14,67,61,503/to Shri Dhirajlal N. Shah of M/s. Time Video, Mumbai, India, other than the authorised dealers, without any general or special exemption from the RBI and alleged contravention of provisions of Section 9(3) of the FERA Act. 9. The petitioner alleged that at a joint hearing of this show cause notice insofar as the petitioner was concerned, though in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order it is attempted to be shown that the show cause notice was served by Post to the petitioner, but the impugned order itself recites that it was received back in the Department's Office stating that the show cause notice received by the servant inadvertently and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition, it is stated that since 1985, the petitioner was residing at Dubai, for that he was declared as Non Resident Indian ('NRI' for short) by the concerned authorities. In paragraph 3 of the Petition, details of his NRI accounts have been given. The petitioner, then, has listed the business activities in paragraph 4 and he would urge that during his stay at Dubai, the authorities in Dubai did not find any illegality in his business dealings. The petitioner being NRI was visiting India and residing with his mother, two brothers and sister. From Dubai he made several gifts to his family through two banks, details of which are set out. 13. Then petitioner in paragraph 9 mentions about raid carried out and the search and seizure operation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served on him. The petitioner was also interrogated and later on, arrested by the Enforcement Authorities, produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Mumbai. 16. The petitioner retracted from his statement recorded by the authorities and thereupon, it is stated that the Department did not take any steps under aforementioned law but the SAFEMA. It is when the petitioner was investigated by the authorities under SAFEMA that time he was made aware of the show cause notice dated 24/11/1997. The petitioner says that he was informed about the detention order under the COFEPOSA, but on 22nd March, 2018 this detention order dated 8th August, 1996 was sought to be executed after lapse of 22 years. 17. Hence, that order was al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is, thus a grave and serious issue. Its strict and stringent provisions enable the authorities to adjudicate into the breaches of the law, and thereafter, if proved, impose penalties. That is how the impugned order proceeds. The impugned order does not show that the petitioner was duly served, but deliberately did not appear or avoided to appear. Having received the show cause notice and related papers, he did not file any reply. He avoided even the service of the proceedings. The above is not the position emerging from the order itself. Rather the order is passed after observing that certain attempts to serve the petitioner were made but having not found him at the premises of one Hasmukh Shah, the order was passed in his absence. Once....