9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Proceedings for contraventions of FERA, 1973 - Delay in filing appeals - Mitigating circumstances vs. extent of contravention - Sympathetic consideration - Confiscation of seized amount - Application of mind in imposing penalties. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, involved two appellants proceeded against for contraventions of sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973, with penalties imposed on them. The appeals were directed against a common adjudication order and were being disposed of by a common order due to the commonality of issues. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned based on medical certificates submitted by the appellants, citing illness as the reason for the delay. The core issue in the case revolved around the effect of mitigating circumstances in light of the contraventions committed by the appellants. Both appellants admitted to receiving payments through an unauthorized channel to accommodate a family friend, emphasizing the absence of any undue advantage for personal gain. The focus was on whether mitigating circumstances should influence the penalties imposed rather than the factum and extent of the contraventions. In the detailed analysis of the individual appeals, it was highlighted that one appellant acted in good faith to help a friend without realizing the breach of law, while the other emphasized the social compulsion and lack of intention to default the government. The appellants pleaded for sympathetic consideration based on their specific circumstances, including their familial relationships and financial hardships. The defense presented by the respondent highlighted the admission of the alleged receipts/payments by the appellants, emphasizing the established legal principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense. The respondent argued that mens rea is not essential for the contraventions and that the penalties imposed were nominal considering the circumstances. The judgment referred to observations by the Mumbai High Court regarding the necessity for establishing undue advantage in cases of confiscation under FERA. It emphasized that confiscation should not be automatic and must be based on sound reasons, with a requirement for a culpable mental state on the part of the accused. The judgment stressed the need for a judicious exercise of power in confiscation cases, highlighting the importance of application of mind and good reasons for such decisions. Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal modified the impugned order, reducing the penalties imposed on the appellants and directing the release of the seized amount. The judgment emphasized the need for a judicial determination of penalties based on individual circumstances and mitigating factors, while also underscoring the requirement for a judicious approach in confiscation decisions.
|
