2025 PLP 772 (YLR)

Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.

This order shall decide the present writ petition as well as connected Writ Petition No. 32950 of 2024 on account of similarity of facts and the orders impugned by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Appellate Board). For the purposes of this order only the facts of the present case shall suffice.

2. The writ petition calls into question order dated 30.03.2018 passed by the Adjudication Officer and order dated 18.11.2021 passed by Appellate Board.

3. The petitioner is goldsmith by profession who exported goods abroad in terms of SRO 266(I)/2001 dated 07.05.2001. The matter with regard to the repatriation of proceeds of export goods was taken up by the Adjudication Officer in which proceedings the petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte and finally an order was passed against him on 30.03.2018 by imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,056,545/-. On the basis of the order passed by the Adjudication Officer, the bank accounts of the petitioner were blocked. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the impugned order by Adjudication Officer in the month of February, 2020 and after obtaining the certified copies of the relevant documents he filed an appeal before the Appellate Board of 14.02.2020 together with an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Board dismissed the appeal of the petitioner through the impugned order mainly on the point of limitation.

4. Learned counsel submits that in similar circumstances, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 70153 of 2022 which was allowed on 22.02.2023 and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Board for decision afresh on merits and that the Appellate Board in post remand proceedings accepted the appeal and waived the penalty. It is furthermore submitted that the petitioner moved its business from Anarkali to Model Town Lahore and as such the notices by the Adjudication Officer were not received by it. It is furthermore submitted that the petitioner is not in default in repatriation of the proceeds of the export goods and that it is available to it all the relevant documents to demonstrate that it was in compliance of SRO 266(I)/2001 dated 07.05.2001.

5. The fact that the petitioner imported gold equivalent to the value of the export made by it in terms of SRO 266(I)/2001 date 07.05.2011 is accepted by the Adjudication Officer in paragraph No. 9 of its order. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: On the basis of the Statements on Oath provided by the complainant and the AD and other relevant record presented to this court, it has been proved beyond any doubt that although the respeondent has repatriated hundred percent weight of gold content of jewellery exported including wastage, and gemstones yet he failed to realize value addition/labour charges of the above export overdue bills.

6. It is thus apparent that the petitioner was not in default of provisions of SRO 266(I)/2001 and that admittedly the petitioner imported gold of equivalent value. It was in this context that only penalty was levied on the petitioner. The Appellant Board in its impugned order did not touch upon this aspect of the matter and only rendered findings on the issue of limitation. In so far as the penalty is concerned, the Appellate Board in similar circumstances in the case of the petitioner waived the same. Similarly, the Appellate Board did not render any findings on the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner and as such the order passed by it cannot sustain.

7. In the circumstances, this writ petition and the connected writ petition is allowed and order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Appellate Board is set aside with the result that the appeal of the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before it which shall decide it afresh. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. MQ/W-7/L Petition allowed.