Foreign exchange contravention proved on circumstantial evidence; penalty upheld despite challenge to denied cross-examination.

Contravention of foreign exchange restrictions under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA was found proved on circumstantial material, including seized records, the recovered chit, the linked telephone number, and the co-actor's statement showing receipt and distribution of payments on instructions from a person resident outside India. The appellant failed to explain the connection reflected in the record. Refusal of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings because no specific, substantiated request was shown. In economic legislation of this kind, the charge may be established on a prudent assessment of probabilities rather than mathematical certainty, and the penalty was upheld with the adjudication order sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had contravened Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by receiving payment on behalf of a person resident outside India, and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was identified through the seized records and the telephone number found in the recovered chit, which was linked to the appellant's business premises and firm. The statement of the co-actor established that payments were being received and distributed on instructions from a person resident outside India, and the appellant failed to explain the connection shown by the material on record. The refusal of cross-examination was not held to vitiate the proceedings, as no specific request or sufficient basis was shown. In proceedings under economic legislation of this nature, the charge may be proved on a prudent assessment of probabilities and need not be established with mathematical certainty.

Conclusion: The contravention under Section 9(1)(b) stood proved and the penalty was held to be justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was sustained and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for contravention of foreign exchange restrictions, liability may be established on a reasonable inference from circumstantial material and probable proof, and refusal of cross-examination does not by itself amount to a breach of natural justice where no specific and substantiated request is made.

---