ANIL DEV SINGH ( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition whereby the petitioners seek setting aside of the order of Foreign Exchange Regulation Board dated July 25,1994 and quashing of the order of the Special Director of Enforcement dated September 29, 1987 whereby the total penalty of Rs. 13. 5 lakhs and Rs. 2. 5 lakhs were imposed on the first petitioner and the second petitioner respectively. The facts briefly stated are as under:- ( 2 ) FIRST petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and second petitioner is the Director of first petitioner. The first petitioner company was established in the year 1977 in Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gujarat for manufacturing of knitwears from imported raw-material. The company was 100% export unit. It is not disputed that from the year 1979 to the year 1982 the company made total export of Rs. 1,50,85,549/- and payment was realised to the extent of Rs. 1,35, 52,425. 00 However, an amount of Rs. 15,43,120/- pertaining to 14 export bills was not realised by the petitioners on account of exports. On May 13, 1986 the Special Director, Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate issued a notice to the petitioners requiring them to show-cause why adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short fera ) be not held against them. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, the second petitioner filed a reply on his behalf and on behalf of the company in which it was admitted that export proceeds to the tune of USD 1,92,929 were still to be realised. It was however, denied that they had refrained from taking any action to realise the export proceeds. The further stand of the petitioners was that at the beginning of year 1978-79, the company ran into financial difficulties due to initial teething troubles, strike by workers and fraud of about Rs. 62. 00 lakhs perpetrated by a merchant exporter of Delhi. Ultimately due to financial difficulties, unit was closed in 1982. The reply further averred that as a result of financial difficulties, it was impossible even to initiate legal actions against defaulting buyer. In so far as one of the buyers M/s. Hasmukh Brothers (HK) Ltd. Hong Kong was concerned, it was stated that it had supplied goods worth Rs. 66,47,665. 21 to the petitioners but the former could not realise the proceeds from the latter. In so far as one of the buyers M/s. Hasmukh Brothers (HK) Ltd. Hong Kong was concerned, it was stated that it had supplied goods worth Rs. 66,47,665. 21 to the petitioners but the former could not realise the proceeds from the latter. This resulted in M/s. Hasmukh Brothers (H K) Ltd. going into liquidation and therefore, an amount of USD 57,200 which the petitioners had to recover from M/s. Hasmukh Brothers on account of export of knitwear, could not be realised. Similarly other bills on the following buyers in regard to the exports made by the petitioners have remain unrealised: - 1. M/s. ETS Popoud, France. 2. M/s. Flookwise Ltd. , London. 3. Commercial Importers and Exports, Digibouti. 4. M/s. Steop and Shop, London. 5. W. Adr. B. M. Holland. ( 3 ) THE main defence of the petitioners in regard to the non-realisation of the payment in respect of the export made to the aforesaid parties is that the petitioners did not have finances to fight litigation in other countries for realising the outstandings. In regard to some of the aforesaid buyers, it is stated that the companies to which exports were made have gone into liquidation. The Special Director by his order dated September 29, 1987 came to the conclusion that no effort has been made by the petitioners to realise the amount in question thereby causing a loss of foreign exchange to the country. It was also observed that the petitioners did not even care to inform the Reserve Bank of India about the difficulties faced by them in realising the amount. The Special Director held the petitioners guilty of contravening the provision of Sections 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the FERA. Accordingly, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs on the first petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 2. 50 lakhs on the second petitioner under Section 50 of the FERA. Against this order of the Special Director, a composite appeal by the first petitioner and the second petitioner was sent to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board which was received by it on October 13, 1988. Subsequently the second petitioner filed a separate appeal as according to him the department did not accept a composite appeal. The Appellate Board on July 25,1994 dismissed the appeals of the petitioners as being time barred. Subsequently the second petitioner filed a separate appeal as according to him the department did not accept a composite appeal. The Appellate Board on July 25,1994 dismissed the appeals of the petitioners as being time barred. While dismissing the appeals, it was observed by the Board that the appellants did not appear when the case was fixed for hearing on an earlier occasion which necessitated the service of notice according to Rule 10 (c) of the AP and A Rules, 1974. It was also noticed by the Board that the petitioners failed to put in appearance even on the date when the matter was disposed of, though Ms. Divya Behl, Advocate appeared and stated that the second petitioner had instructed Mr. Subhash Malik, Advocate for seeking an adjournment. It was found by the Board that the petitioners had not authorised any counsel to appear on their behalf in the appeals. The Board also noticed that the appeals were filed after one year of the receipt of the order passed by Special Director. It is this order of the Board which has been impugned before me alongwith the original order of the Special Director. From the aforesaid narration of facts it is clear that the petitioners filed the appeals after about one year from the date of the order dated September 29, 1987 passed by the Special Director of Enforcement, Bombay. The Board dealt with the question of delay in the following manner:- "we also note from the record that this appeal has been filed after about one year from the date of the receipt of the impugned order. Section 52 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 prescribes a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of an adjudication order for filing an appeal against such order before this Board. The Board, no doubt has power, under the first proviso to sections 52 (2) to condone the delay in filing an appeal but this power can be exercised by the Board only where the appeal has been filed beyond 45 days but not beyond 90 days of the adjudication order. The board has no jurisdiction to condone delay where an appeal has been filed after the expiry of 90 days. The board has no jurisdiction to condone delay where an appeal has been filed after the expiry of 90 days. " ( 4 ) THE view of the Board is in conformity with Section 52 (2) of the FERA and I see no reason to interfere with the same. The petitioners have not given any cogent reasons why appeals were filed after such an inordinate delay. The only explanation appears to be that a composite appeal w as despatched on October 26, 1987 by the petitioners. The petitioners have not explained as to how the appeal was received by the department on October 13, 1988 after a period of one year. The petitioners have not placed any material, not even a postal receipt, on record to support their contention that they had despatched the appeal on October 26,1987. In case of a separate appeal by the second petitioner, there is no dispute that the same was filed after a period of one year. Apart from this, the petitioners have been negligent in persuing their appeal before the Appellate Board. In the circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.