Abetment in foreign exchange matters requires proof of knowing assistance; unsupported suspicion cannot sustain confiscation or penalty.

Issuing a foreign exchange receipt before actual receipt of funds did not, on the facts noted, establish abetment where the appellant was an authorised dealer empowered to receive foreign exchange. The authority's view that the receipt was a device to conceal illicit procurement of foreign currency was unsupported by evidence, and the record did not show that the appellant knowingly assisted any unlawful act. On that basis, the allegation of abetment failed, and the proposed confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be held liable for abetment and subjected to confiscation and penalty on the basis of issuing a foreign exchange receipt before actual receipt of the money.

Analysis: The appellant was an authorised dealer empowered to receive foreign exchange. The finding that the issue of the receipt was a device to cover illicit procurement of foreign currency by the tailor was not supported by any evidence on record. The material before the Authority did not establish that the appellant had knowingly assisted any unlawful act.

Conclusion: The allegation of abetment was not proved, and the confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

---