Perversity in concurrent findings can raise a question of law and justify appellate interference and remand.

Concurrent findings of fact do not bar appellate scrutiny where perversity, absence of evidence, or disregard of relevant material gives rise to a question of law. On that basis, the appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable. The exoneration under Section 8(1) was found unsustainable because the currency declaration forms, handwriting analysis, and the disparity between declared and deposited foreign exchange indicated forgery, while the adjudication had accepted the defence without adequate inquiry and without a fair opportunity to the Department. The exonerating orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable on questions of law despite concurrent findings of fact. (ii) Whether the orders exonerating the respondent from liability under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were sustainable in view of the material on record and the manner in which the adjudication was conducted.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable on questions of law despite concurrent findings of fact.

Analysis: The appeal was not confined to a mere reappreciation of facts. The record disclosed that a challenge to concurrent findings could still raise a question of law where the findings were alleged to be perverse, unsupported by evidence, or reached by ignoring relevant material. The scope of appellate interference was therefore not barred merely because the order under challenge contained concurrent factual conclusions.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable as it involved questions of law arising from the asserted perversity of the findings.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders exonerating the respondent from liability under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were sustainable in view of the material on record and the manner in which the adjudication was conducted.

Analysis: The material on record, including the questioned currency declaration forms and the handwriting analysis, indicated forgery and a substantial discrepancy between the declared foreign exchange and the amount deposited. The adjudicating authority had accepted the respondent's explanation without adequate inquiry, and the Department was not given full opportunity to meet the defence case. The resulting findings were therefore held to be unsupported by proper appreciation of evidence and to have caused miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The exonerating orders were not legally sustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after affording both sides a proper opportunity to present their case.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings may be interfered with in appeal where they are perverse, based on no evidence, or reached by ignoring relevant material and denying a fair opportunity to a party; in such a case, remand for fresh decision is justified.

---