Appeal by enforcement authority needs specific government authorization; concurrent findings can defeat FERA confiscation claims.

An appeal by an enforcement authority was treated as incompetent because the Director had not shown specific authorization to act on behalf of the Central Government, and a later notification could not validate appeals already filed without authority. In FERA proceedings, the Court also relied on concurrent findings of the customs, income-tax and tribunal authorities that the foreign currency had been lawfully brought into India and declared on arrival. On that factual basis, the alleged contravention and related confiscation were not sustained, although interest on the retained amount was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeals filed by the enforcement authority were maintainable in the absence of authority to prefer them on behalf of the Central Government; (ii) whether the foreign currency of US $ 2,89,250 was lawfully imported and, if so, whether the FERA contravention and confiscation could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether the appeals filed by the enforcement authority were maintainable in the absence of authority to prefer them on behalf of the Central Government.

Analysis: The appeals were instituted by the Director of Enforcement without demonstrated authorization to act for the Central Government. The Court applied the principle that an adjudicating authority, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, cannot file an appeal against an appellate order unless specifically empowered to do so on behalf of the Government. A subsequent notification could not cure the defect for proceedings already instituted without such authority.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether the foreign currency of US $ 2,89,250 was lawfully imported and, if so, whether the FERA contravention and confiscation could be sustained.

Analysis: The Court accepted the concurrent findings of the customs and income-tax authorities, as well as the FERA Tribunal, that the currency covered by the declaration forms had been brought into India lawfully and declared on arrival. Those findings had evidentiary value in the FERA proceedings, especially since the same factual matrix had been examined by multiple authorities. On that basis, the charge of contravention in relation to that amount and the related confiscation could not be sustained. The petitioner was, however, not entitled to interest on the retained amount.

Conclusion: The FERA findings against the assessee in relation to US $ 2,89,250 were not sustained, and the amount was directed to be dealt with in accordance with the earlier export permission regime.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed and the writ petition was allowed to the extent of release of the currency amount in accordance with the earlier directions, without interest.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal by an adjudicating authority is not maintainable unless the authority is specifically empowered to prefer it on behalf of the Central Government, and concurrent findings in cognate proceedings on the same facts may be relied upon as persuasive evidentiary material in FERA proceedings.

---