FERA Export Proceeds Liability Upheld, Penalty Reduced to ₹30 Lakh by SAFEMA Tribunal

Arun Sogani Vs Joint Director (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)

Liquidation of Company Does Not Wipe Out Director’s Liability for Non-Realisation of Export Proceeds—₹3 Crore FERA Penalty Reduced to ₹30 Lakh

Summary: The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has upheld the liability of a director for failure to realise export proceeds under the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It held that the subsequent liquidation of the company and transfer of its records to the Official Liquidator would not absolve a director who was in charge of the company when the exports were made and the period for realisation expired.

However, considering the age of the proceedings, liquidation of the company and other surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed on the director from ₹3 crore to ₹30 lakh—the amount already deposited by him.

Facts of the case

The Reserve Bank of India informed the Enforcement Directorate that M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. had been caution-listed for failure to realise substantial export proceeds relating to the period 1990 to 1998.

Information received from various banks showed unrealised export proceeds of approximately ₹26.36 crore and USD 9,80,000. The company and its directors had allegedly failed to realise and repatriate these amounts within the prescribed period and had not obtained the RBI’s permission for such non-realisation or delay.

Directives under Section 33(2) of FERA were issued to the company, its directors and concerned banks. The appellant, Shri Arun Sogani, sought 20 days’ time to furnish a reply but did not subsequently file any response.

A show-cause notice was issued in 2002. According to the Enforcement Directorate, repeated attempts to serve the company and its directors were unsuccessful. Notices sent by post were returned with endorsements such as “left the premises” and “no such person”. Attempts at personal service and service by affixture were also made.

The Adjudicating Authority ultimately passed an ex parte order in 2019 imposing a penalty of ₹3 crore on the appellant under Section 50 of FERA for contravention of Sections 18(2), 18(3) and 68.

Appellant’s contentions

The appellant contended that neither the show-cause notice nor the relied-upon documents had been served upon him. The notices were allegedly sent only to the company’s address and not to the directors’ correct personal addresses.

It was argued that the Enforcement Directorate was aware that the appellant and other directors were regularly appearing before the Special Court in the connected prosecution. Therefore, the notices could have been served upon them through the court proceedings.

The appellant further contended that the company had gone into liquidation and its records and assets were placed in the custody of the Official Liquidator. Once the liquidator was appointed, the directors had no control over the company’s affairs and no access to the relevant documents necessary to defend themselves.

It was also submitted that the adjudication order did not specifically demonstrate how the appellant was personally responsible for the alleged contravention.

Knowledge of investigation and avoidance of notices

The Tribunal rejected the plea that the ex parte order violated the principles of natural justice.

It observed that the appellant had admittedly received the directive issued during the investigation and had himself sought 20 days’ time to respond. He thereafter failed to submit any reply.

The record also showed that repeated notices fixing hearings on different dates were sent by the Enforcement Directorate. Those notices were returned because the appellant had left the given premises without communicating his new address.

The Tribunal held that a person who was aware of an ongoing investigation and failed to cooperate could not later take advantage of his own default and allege that no adequate opportunity had been granted.

The Adjudicating Authority was therefore justified in deciding the matter on the basis of the available record.

Presumption under Section 18(3) remained unrebutted

The fact that the export proceeds remained unrealised was not disputed by the appellant. Even during the hearing, the Enforcement Directorate stated that the amounts continued to remain unrealised, and this statement was not controverted.

Section 18(3) of FERA creates a presumption that where the prescribed period has expired and export payment has not been received, the exporter has failed to take all reasonable steps to recover the amount unless the contrary is proved.

Neither the company nor the appellant produced evidence showing the recovery measures taken, correspondence with foreign buyers, legal proceedings initiated, applications made to the RBI, write-off approvals obtained or any other reasonable efforts undertaken for realisation of the dues.

Consequently, the statutory presumption remained unrebutted.

Liquidation is not a defence to an earlier contravention

The Tribunal rejected the contention that the appellant could not be held liable because the company had subsequently gone into liquidation.

The relevant contraventions occurred between 1990 and 1998. During that period, the appellant and the other directors were in charge of the company. The obligation to realise and repatriate the export proceeds arose and remained unfulfilled while they were managing its affairs.

The subsequent appointment of an Official Liquidator could not retrospectively erase the earlier contravention.

Further, the appellant did not produce any material showing that he had requested the Official Liquidator to provide the necessary records or that the liquidator had refused him access to such documents.

The RBI and bank records also indicated that the appellant was an active director when the exports were made and when the permitted realisation period expired. His liability under Section 68 of FERA was therefore sustained.

Penalty reduced from ₹3 crore to ₹30 lakh

The Tribunal noted that the amount involved in the contravention was approximately ₹26 crore apart from the foreign-currency component. The original penalty of ₹3 crore was less than 12% of the amount involved, whereas FERA permitted a substantially higher penalty.

Nevertheless, having regard to the long period that had elapsed, the time at which adjudication proceedings commenced, the liquidation of the company and other attending circumstances, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to restrict the penalty to the amount already deposited by the appellant.

The penalty was accordingly reduced from ₹3 crore to ₹30 lakh.

Author’s comments

The decision brings out an important distinction between the existence of a contravention and the quantum of penalty. Liquidation of the exporter does not extinguish a contravention that had already occurred, though it may be considered while determining a proportionate penalty.

Section 18(3) of FERA placed a significant evidentiary burden upon the exporter. Once export proceeds remained unrealised beyond the prescribed period, the law presumed failure to take reasonable recovery steps unless the exporter proved otherwise. Mere reference to business difficulties, missing records or liquidation would not rebut that presumption.

The ruling also cautions persons facing regulatory proceedings against ignoring notices after gaining knowledge of the investigation. At the same time, the reduction of penalty by 90% demonstrates that extraordinary delay, liquidation and surrounding hardships can still be relevant while deciding the appropriate quantum.

Thus, liability was upheld, but proportionality ultimately provided substantial relief.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”), against the Order No. SDE(VW)/03/2019/CR dated 25.09.2019 passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi in Complaint No. T-4/171-D/2001(SCN-II)/SDE(CR) imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on Shri Arun Sogani (the appellant herein), for contravention of Section 18(2) and (3) read with Section 68 of the erstwhile Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (“FERA”), and the Central Government Notifications No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 & 3 both dated 01.01.1974.

Facts in Brief

2. The brief facts of the case are that information was received from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide letters dated 22.02.2000 and 29.02.2000, that the RBI had caution-listed one M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. in terms of Section 18(9) FERA, for failure to realize huge export outstandings to the tune of the US $ 75,72,699.95 and US $ 34,35,510.00 during the period 1990 to 1998.

3. Directives under Section 33(2) of FERA were issued to various banks in which the company had accounts as well as to the company and its directors on 25.05.2000 for providing GR-wise complete details of export outstanding and reason for non-realization. The banks provided information in response to the directives issued, which are as below:

4. The directives and summonses sent to the company and its directors were received back undelivered. However, the present appellant, vide a letter which was received by the respondent (ED) on 09.06.2000, sought twenty days’ time to furnish reply. No reply was, however, filed by him subsequently.

5. The investigation revealed that the company and its directors, without any permission from the RBI, failed to realise the proceeds of its exports to the tune of Rs. 26,36,00,694/- and US $ 9,80,000.00 within the time prescribed by the RBI, and the payment was not received or had been delayed from 1990 to 1998, resulting in violation of Section 18(2) and (3) read with Section 68 FERA, 1973 and Central Government Notifications No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 & 3 both dated 01.01.1974. Mr. Arun Sogani, Mr. P. C. Sogani, Mr. Ashok Sanghi, Mr. Madan Aggarwal, Mr. A. R. Doshi, Mr. B. B. Gupta, Mr. S. B. Rajguru, Mr. H. Holck-Larsen and Mr. Arvind Joshi were the directors of the company at such time and in-charge of, as well as responsible for, the conduct of business of the company, and therefore, liable under Section 18(2) and (3) read with Section 68 of FERA, 1973.

6. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) bearing T-4/171-D/2001(SCN-II) dated 25.05.2002 was issued to all the notices. However, none of the noticees replied to the SCN. Further, call notices were also sent to the Noticees, however, the same were received unserved, including for the present appellant. It also came to notice that the properties, documents and assets of the company were in the custody of the Official Liquidator, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi at A-2, W-2, Curzon Road, Barracks K. G. Marg, New Delhi, to whom the Ld. AA sent a notice. However, the Official Liquidator also failed to appear or respond.

7. The Ld. AAfinally passed the impugned order on 25.09.2019 imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- on the appellant herein under Section 50 of FERA, 1973 for violation of Section 18(2) and (3) read with Section 68 of the said Act and Central Government Notifications No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 & 3 both dated 01.01.1974, upon being satisfied that the charges against him were proved and that the appellant and other noticees were evading the proceedings.

Submissions for the Appellant

8. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order was passed ex-parte as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice, fair play and equity. Also, copy of the impugned order was not provided to the appellant despite various reminders being sent vide letters dated 11.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 to the respondent and the appeal was filed on the basis of the copy of impugned order received by the appellant on behalf of his father Mr. P. C. Sogani (since deceased).

9. It was also submitted that the appellant was not served with the Show Cause Notice or the Relied Upon Documents. The notices were sent on the address of the company and not on the addresses of the appellant and other directors. Even otherwise, all the accused persons, including the appellant, were regularly appearing before the Ld. Special Court in the Prosecution Complaint filed by the respondent, therefore, the respondent cannot take the plea that the appellant was not traceable and in fact, the Respondent could have served the notice on the appellant therein, but the respondent did not do so. The appellant only received the directive which was issued prior to initiation of proceedings before the Ld. AA, therefore, he was not aware of the adjudication proceedings going on before the Ld. AA.

10. It was further submitted that the impugned order fails to indicate as to how the appellant has violated the provisions of the FERA. Similarly, the impugned order has been passed merely on the basis of presumption as there is no material on record to prove or corroborate the allegations.

11. It was contended that the appellant was not in control or in charge of the affairs of the company after the Official Liquidator was appointed and the Ld. AA failed to seek comments and report of the Official Liquidator, before adjudicating the issues. In fact, there was complete non-application of mind by the Directorate as well as by the Ld. AA. No investigation was conducted by the ED. Mr. H. Holck Larsen was no more at the time of passing the impugned order, but proceedings were continued against him. The Official Liquidator was not called during the adjudication process.

12. In light of the detailed submissions, as above, it is prayed by the appellant that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned order bearing no. SDE(VW)/03/2019/CR passed by the Ld. AA dated 25.09.2019 be set aside.

Submissions for the Respondent

13. The respondent Directorate has not filed a formal reply to the appeal in this case. The opportunity to do so was finally closed vide the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 05.02.2026. However, detailed verbal arguments were presented on behalf of the respondent at the time of hearing of the appeal on merits.

14. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the appellant wilfully contravened the provisions of FERA in his capacity as a director of the company, as he deliberately failed to take statutory measures to realise and repatriate massive export outstanding to the tune of Rs. 26,36,00,694/- and US $ 9,80,000.00 into India.

15. It was also submitted that the appellant and the company failed to rebut the presumption under Section 18(3) FERA and to show that they took all reasonable steps to recover the payments. Similarly, the appellant failed to establish that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised due diligence to prevent the delay in repatriation. Additionally, the official records of banks and RBI show that the appellant was the active director of the company at the relevant time when the exports were executed and the realization window closed. Thus, he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and therefore, liable under Section 68 FERA.

16. It was further submitted that the appellant deliberately evaded the proceedings before the Ld. AA despite having personal liability and knowledge as evident from the fact that he sought time of twenty days to respond to the directive issued under Section 33(2) FERA on 25.05.2000 but did not file any reply and remained evasive.

17. It was also pointed out that the Ld. AA issued Show Cause Notice to the appellant by post, however, the same remained undelivered as the appellant left the premises. Similarly, the respondent made attempts to serve the appellant personally and also affixed the notices, but the appellant was not traceable. Nevertheless, the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings before the Ld. AA as evident from his request letter addressed to the respondent on 09.06.2000. Even otherwise, the appellant ought to have informed the respondent regarding change of address, owing to the pendency of investigation and enquiries about which he was aware.

18. It was further contended that the penalty imposed by the Ld. AA is reasonable and proper and not at all disproportionate, arbitrary or excessive.

19. In summary, the respondent submits that the impugned order bearing no. SDE(VW)/03/2019/CR passed by the Ld. AA dated 25.09.2019 is well reasoned, passed after due diligence, the quantum of penalty imposed is moderate and reasonable, and the order does call for any interference

Analysis, Findings & Order

20. I have given careful consideration to the facts on record and the rival contentions of the parties. In this case, the findings from the investigations conducted by the respondent directorate are that, between 1990 and 1998, the company, M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. and its directors, without any permission from the RBI, failed to realise export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 26,36,00,694/- and US $ 9,80,000.00 within the time prescribed and the payment was not received/delayed, resulting in violation of Section 18(2) and (3) read with Section 68 FERA, 1973 and Central Government Notifications No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 & 3 both dated 01.01.1974. Further, Mr. Arun Sogani, Mr. P. C. Sogani, Mr. Ashok Sanghi, Mr. Madan Aggarwal, Mr. A. R. Doshi, Mr. B. B. Gupta, Mr. S. B. Rajguru, Mr. H. Holck Larsen and Mr. Arvind Joshi were the directors of the company at such time and in-charge of, as well as responsible for, the conduct of business of the company. Thus, the directors were also liable for imposition of penalty for the violations under Section 18(2) and (3) read with Section 68 FERA, 1973. For the purposes of the present appeal, however, we are only concerned with the case of Mr. Arun Sogani.

21. I find that the fact of non-realization of the export proceeds has not been contested by the appellant. In fact, during the final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent stated that the aforesaid export proceeds remain unrealized even to this day. The submission made by him was not contradicted from the side of the appellant.

22. The main ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is non-service of notices, including the initial Show Cause Notice, and failure to supply the relied-upon documents. It is contended that the impugned order was passed ex-parte, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice, fair play and equity. The notices were sent on the address of the company and not on the addresses of the appellant/directors. Even a copy of the impugned order was not provided to the appellant after it was passed, despite various reminders being sent vide letters dated 11.10.2019 and 27.11.2019 to the respondent. The present appeal was filed by the appellant on the basis of the copy of impugned order received by the him on behalf of his father, Mr. P. C. Sogani (since deceased). In this regard, it is further contended that all the accused persons, including the appellant and other directors, were regularly appearing before the Ld. Special Court in the Prosecution Complaint filed by the respondent, and therefore, the respondent cannot take the plea that the appellant was not traceable. It is claimed that only the directive issued at the stage of investigation, prior to initiation of adjudication proceedings, was received by him and, therefore, the appellant was not aware of the proceedings before the Ld. AA.

23. A second submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the company went under liquidation and once the Official Liquidator was appointed, the appellant as well as other directors neither had any control over its affairs, nor were they in a position to access the relevant information regarding the transactions so as to defend their actions. The relevant documents as well as assets of the company were in the custody of the Official Liquidator, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi at A-2, W-2, Curzon Road, Barracks K. G. Marg, New Delhi, to whom the Ld. AA sent a notice. However, the Official Liquidator failed to appear and respond.

24. As against the above, the respondent has contended that the appellant and others deliberately evaded the proceedings before the Ld. AA right from the beginning. It is pointed out by the respondent that the Ld. AA issued Show Cause Notice to the appellant by post. However, the same remained undelivered as the appellant left the premises without intimating his new address. Similarly, the respondent made attempts to serve the Appellant personally and also served the notices by affixture, but the appellant was not traceable. Nevertheless, it is contended that the appellant had knowledge of the ongoing proceedings as is evident from his request letter addressed to the respondent on 09.06.2000 whereby he sought time twenty days’ time to respond to the directive issued under Section 33(2) FERA on 25.05.2000. However, he did not file any reply and remained evasive. It is contended that the Appellant ought to have informed the Respondent regarding change of address as he was fully aware of the pendency of investigation and enquiries.

25. I have considered the submissions from both sides carefully on the issue of providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant and find myself in full agreement with the observations of this Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 25.02.2025 passed while deciding the application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty filed by the appellant. In the said order, the Bench has observed as follows:

“4. We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the Impugned Order, it is obvious that that the Appellant was aware of the investigations launched against the Company M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. and its Directors, including the Appellant himself. It is on record that the Appellant acknowledged the directive issued to him in his letter, which was received in the office of the Respondent on 09.06.2000. In fact, the Appellants sought 20 days’ time to furnish reply to the directive. However, he failed to send any reply. It is also on record that summons were issued to the Appellant at his residential and Company address but which were received back undelivered from the postal authorities. Efforts were also made to serve the summons through personal service, which could not materialize as the Appellant was not traceable.

5. It appears from the Impugned Order that the SCN No. T-4/171- D/2001 (SCN-II) dated 25^th May, 2002 was sent to the Noticees by post on 27.05.2002. Call Notices for providing an opportunity for personal hearing on 08.10.2003, 23.12.2003, 07.12.2012, 20.12.2012 and 27.12.2012 were returned by the postal authorities with remarks no such person/left the premises. We therefore find that it is on record that attempts were made by the Respondent Directorate to serve the Notice and provide opportunity to the Appellant to furnish his explanation. We also note that the Appellant even if he shifted from the addresses given by him, has failed to notify the new address to the Respondent Directorate, in spite of being aware of the said investigations and enquiries.

6. The Impugned Order also reveals that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority was informed that the Company M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. had gone into liquidation and all the documents and assets belonging to the Company were in the custody of Official Liquidator at New Delhi. Call Notice was also issued to the Official Liquidator for personal hearing scheduled on 21.01.2009 but the Official Liquidator failed to respond.

7. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has made the following finding in Paragraph 5.6 of the Impugned Order:

“ I find that right from inception of this case in the year 2000 till its culmination resulting in issuance of SCN on 25.05.2002, M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. and its Directors remained evasive in joining the investigation/cooperating with the Department despite the fact that they were aware of investigation being conducted against them as is evident from reply filed by Shri Arun Sogani seeking additional time in respect of Directive dated 25.05.2000 issued to him by the Department. It is also a fact that he did not respond thereafter. At the adjudication stage, opportunities were offered to the Noticees by way of fixing personal hearing on 08.10.2003 and 23.12.2003 but the Noticees again failed to respond.”

We, therefore, find that in the face of persistent non-cooperation, Ld. Adjudicating Authority was left with no option but to adjudicate the matter on the basis of available record which resulted in penalty of Rs. 5 Crore on the Company M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 3 Crore on its Director Shri Arun Sogani, who is the Appellant herein, besides, penalty imposed on other Directors. We also cannot agree with the proposition of the Appellant that since the company was under liquidation no penalty could have been imposed on him, in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect.”

26. As already mentioned, although the above order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Misc. Appeal (PMLA) No. 20/2025, however, the Hon’ble High Court did not did not record any findings contrary to the observations of the Bench, but merely extended the time for compliance vide order dated 22.04.2025. I am of the view that the above observations made by the Appellate Tribunal at the time of deciding the application for dispensation of pre-deposit penalty remain equally valid for the present proceedings insofar as the issue of opportunity of hearing is concerned. Once the appellant was aware about of the investigation and even sought time to respond, thus, his subsequently, failure to file any response within the time he himself had sought, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead denial of opportunity of being heard. As a reasonable man, due diligence and cooperation was expected from his side. He could not have simply assumed that the investigations have been closed without taking them to any logical conclusion. The much more plausible explanation is that he deliberately avoided the repeated efforts by the Directorate to serve the notices upon him. In light of these findings and observations, I do not find a case of denial of opportunity, resulting in violation of the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, this argument of the appellant would stand rejected.

27. The amount of contravention which has been specified in the impugned order is failure to realize outstanding of export proceeds to the tune of Rs. 26,36,00,694.00 and US $ 9,80,000.00 in respect of exports made during the period 1990-1998. Penalty which has been imposed on the company is definitely less than 20 per cent of the amount of contravention. Penalty which has been imposed on the appellant is also definitely less than 12 per cent of the amount of contravention. I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant that the penalty is huge and more than commensurate to the amount of contravention.

28. The next issue raised on behalf of the appellant is that that the Company, M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd., went under liquidation and once the Official Liquidator was appointed, the directors of the company, including the appellant herein, had no control over its affairs, or any access to the relevant records/information to defend their actions as the relevant documents were in the custody of the Official Liquidator, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, New Delhi at A-2, W-2, Curzon Road, Barracks K. G. Marg, New Delhi, to whom the Ld. AA sent a notice.

29. In this regard, I find that as per the allegations which have remained uncontested on facts, the period of the alleged violation (non-realization of export proceeds) stretched from 1990 to 1998. During this entire period, the appellant and other directors of the company remained in charge of the company. It is not even the appellant’s case that the export proceeds were realized. The submission from the side of respondent, on the other hand, is that the said export proceeds remain unrealized to this day. Moreover, nothing has been brought on record from the side of appellant to show what efforts, if any, he made to obtain the necessary information from the Official Liquidator, whether any request was made or correspondence was addressed. I also find merit in the contention from the side of the respondent that the appellant as well as the company, M/s Unicorp Industries Ltd., failed to rebut the presumption under Section 18(3) FERA, 1973. The said sub-section (3) reads as below:

“(3) Where in relation to any goods to which a notification under clause (a) of sub-section (1) applies the prescribed period has expired and payment therefor has not been made as aforesaid, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved by the person who has sold or is entitled to sell the goods or to procure the sale thereof, that such person has not taken all reasonable steps to receive or recover the payment for the goods as aforesaid and he shall accordingly be presumed to have contravened the provisions of sub-section (2).”

30. It is also pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the official records of banks and RBI show that the Appellant was the active director of the company at the relevant time when the exports were executed and the realization window closed. Thus, he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business and therefore, liable under Section, 68 FERA, 1973.

31. Finally, coming to the quantum of penalty, it is pointed out by the respondent that considering the total magnitude of the contravention which is to the tune of approximately Rs. 26 crore, the penalty imposed on the appellant is less than 12 percent of the amount involved in contravention though the penalty imposable under FERA, 1973 was upto five times the amount or value involved in any contravention.

32. Having carefully considered the rival contentions of parties, the period of the contravention, the time-frame in which the adjudication proceedings were initiated and other attending circumstances, including the company going under liquidation, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the quantum of penalty is confined to the amount already paid by the appellant towards pre-deposit of penalty, i.e., an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The impugned order would, therefore, stand modified accordingly.

33. In light of the above discussions, the imposition of penalty in the present case is upheld, but the quantum thereof is reduced to Rs. 30,00,000/-.

34. With the above, the present appeal would stand disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.

35. No order as to costs.