Sunset clause and misdeclaration principles upheld in exchange-control adjudication, with contravention and abetment sustained.

A show-cause notice issued and signed within the statutory sunset period was treated as sufficient to constitute cognizance of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, so the jurisdictional objection under section 49(3) failed. On the exchange-control allegations, the tribunal accepted documentary and circumstantial evidence that the imported CD-ROMs were misdeclared, over-invoiced, and not genuine computer software as claimed, and held that the foreign exchange obtained was not used for the stated purpose as required by sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. It also found intentional aid and active complicity by the other appellants, establishing abetment. The penalties were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the show-cause notice and adjudication were barred by the sunset clause under section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; and (ii) whether the appellants contravened section 8(3) and section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by misdeclaring and over-invoicing the imported CD-ROMs, and whether the other appellants abetted the contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings were barred by the sunset clause under section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The limitation objection turned on when cognizance or notice of contravention is taken. The order holds that cognizance was taken when the show-cause notice was signed and issued within the prescribed period, and therefore the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority was not lost. The reasoning proceeds on the principle that issuance of the show-cause notice constitutes taking notice of contravention for the purpose of the sunset clause.

Conclusion: The objection based on section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was rejected, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants contravened section 8(3) and section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by misdeclaring and over-invoicing the imported CD-ROMs, and whether the other appellants abetted the contravention.

Analysis: The order relies on the documentary and circumstantial record to hold that the imported goods were not genuine computer software within the meaning of the notification, that the declared value of US$ 15 per piece was artificially inflated, and that the foreign exchange obtained for the imports was not used for the stated purpose in the manner required by section 8(3) and section 8(4). It further finds a direct nexus between the importer, the financing arrangement, the front companies, and the letter of credit arrangements, holding that the assistance rendered by the other appellants amounted to intentional aid and active complicity sufficient to constitute abetment.

Conclusion: The contravention of section 8(3) and section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the abetment charges were proved, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority were sustained and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of foreign-exchange adjudication, a show-cause notice issued within the statutory sunset period is sufficient to found jurisdiction, and deliberate misdeclaration or over-invoicing of imported goods coupled with intentional financial or logistical assistance establishes contravention and abetment under the exchange-control law.

---