Tribunal overturns penalty, drops charges against Appellant in successful appeal. No costs awarded.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, recalling the penalty imposed on the Appellant and dropping all charges against him. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
- Appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
- Allegations of breach of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA against the Appellant.
- Imposition of penalty on the Appellant for alleged contravention of FERA provisions.
- Comparison with another Noticee and allegations of discriminatory treatment.
- Exoneration of another Noticee while imposing penalty on the Appellant.
- Legal infirmities in the impugned order and the need for setting it aside.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was based on various grounds challenging the imposition of a penalty on the Appellant for alleged violations of FERA provisions.

2. The Appellant, a former Director in a company, received a Show Cause Notice regarding non-receipt of export proceeds. The Appellant's role was limited to an advisory capacity, and he was not involved in day-to-day operations or transactions related to the alleged violations.

3. Despite being a Director for a short period, the Appellant acted diligently by seeking information on any FERA violations upon joining and resigned due to lack of board meetings and health reasons. The Appellant cooperated with authorities and was not implicated in any wrongdoing.

4. A comparison was drawn with another Director (Noticee No. 14) who was exonerated by the Special Director due to a short tenure and lack of involvement in export transactions. The Appellant's situation was deemed better as he exercised due diligence upon assuming the Directorship.

5. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty on the Appellant despite finding no evidence of his involvement in the alleged violations. The Appellant was excluded from day-to-day operations and had no role in the export transactions in question.

6. Legal infirmities in the impugned order were highlighted, pointing out discriminatory treatment and erroneous observations by the Special Director regarding the Appellant's responsibilities. The order was deemed unjust and set aside, dropping all charges against the Appellant.

7. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, recalling the penalty imposed on the Appellant and dropping all charges leveled against him. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision.

---