Incomplete consideration of record in foreign exchange abetment dispute led to setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication.

A Tribunal order could not be sustained where the third Member adopted a narrow view of alleged abetment under foreign exchange law and failed to consider the evidence, charges, and competing reasoning in the record as a whole. The Court held that an appellate decision based on incomplete consideration of the material on record and the issues in controversy is vulnerable to interference. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with no final opinion expressed on the merits of the allegations against the banks and their officers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the banks and their officers had not abetted the contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and in setting aside the adjudication order without considering the material on record in its entirety.

Analysis: The dispute concerned allegations that the banks had facilitated remittances against Letters of Credit despite missing or defective import documents and without proper scrutiny of Bills of Lading and Bills of Entry. The Tribunal's third Member resolved the difference of opinion by holding that the alleged acts occurred after the contravention and therefore no abetment was made out. The Court found that this approach was too narrow and cryptic, and that the third Member failed to consider the evidence, the charges, and the competing reasoning of the Members of the Tribunal in their entirety. Since the Tribunal did not deal with the full record and the submissions bearing on the alleged abetment, the order could not stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeals were remanded for fresh consideration. No final opinion was expressed on the merits of the allegations against the banks and their officers.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate order founded on an incomplete consideration of the material on record and the issues in controversy cannot be sustained and may be set aside with a remand for de novo adjudication.

---