Foreign exchange abetment penalty needs clear proof of involvement; inference alone is insufficient to sustain action.

Penalty for alleged abetment of contravention of foreign exchange law requires clear evidence linking the person to the prohibited transaction. Mere inference from conduct or non-appearance, without a factual investigation or specific material showing participation, is insufficient. Where the record does not establish abetment, common intention, or direct involvement in the fraudulent transfer of foreign exchange, the penalty cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty for alleged abetment of contravention of foreign exchange law could be sustained in the absence of clear evidence showing the appellant's involvement.

Analysis: The record did not disclose any specific facts or evidence demonstrating how the appellant abetted the contravention. The adjudicating authority proceeded on inference drawn from conduct and non-appearance, but no investigation or factual basis was provided to connect the appellant with the fraudulent transfer of foreign exchange. Mere inference, without clear-cut evidence of participation or common intention, was held insufficient for imposing penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty order could not be sustained against the appellant.

---