2001 (6) TMI 836 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposed for contravening sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
- Allegations of contravention of various sections of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
- Discrepancies in evidence and acquittals in criminal cases leading to the appeal.
- Consideration of evidence, submissions, and previous criminal cases for the appeal decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against a penalty imposed for contravening sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant was acquitted in some Show-Cause Notices (SCNs) while found guilty in one, resulting in the penalty. The appellant denied the contravention, citing lack of evidence and enmity with the officers of the respondent as possible motives behind the case.

2. The respondent based the appellant's guilt on seized letters and witness statements, emphasizing the involvement of the appellant in compensatory payments. The Adjudicating Officer's reliance on surmises rather than evidence was highlighted. The standard of proof in adjudication proceedings was differentiated from criminal prosecution, citing the need for preponderance of probabilities.

3. The appellant further argued discrepancies in names and lack of evidence supporting the allegations. Acquittals in criminal cases were presented as evidence of innocence, emphasizing the absence of any evidence against the appellant. The appellant's acquittal in criminal cases was attributed to the lack of proof rather than technicalities of law.

4. Upon careful consideration of submissions and evidence, the Chairperson found the lack of evidence against the appellant to be significant. The discrepancies in witness statements, the absence of incriminating documents, and the acquittals in criminal cases tilted the probabilities in favor of the appellant. The Chairperson emphasized that the appellant had been fully exonerated in criminal cases, making the adjudication proceedings unwarranted.

5. Consequently, the Chairperson set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the appellant's honorable acquittals in criminal cases as a significant factor in the decision. The Chairperson criticized the respondent for pursuing adjudication proceedings based on the same charges and evidence on which the appellant had been acquitted in criminal cases.