FERA contravention proved through seized documents, witness admissions and handwriting evidence; penalty and confiscation upheld.

Contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 was found proved on the basis of seized documents, witness admissions linking the appellant to hawala transactions, handwriting confirmation by the Government Examiner, and cash recovery supported by the panchnama. The appellant's explanation was rejected. The tribunal noted that in a quasi-criminal matter, cogent circumstances may discharge the evidentiary burden without mathematical precision. The penalty and confiscation order were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved and the penalty and confiscation order were liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The seized documents contained names, addresses and other particulars linking the appellant to hawala transactions. The persons identified from those documents were examined and they admitted receipt of payments and identified the appellant as the person who delivered the money. The questioned documents were sent to the Government Examiner, who confirmed the appellant's handwriting on the seized material. The recovery of cash was supported by the panchnama, and the appellant's explanation was not accepted. In a quasi-criminal matter of this nature, the evidentiary burden is discharged by cogent circumstances establishing the contravention, and the proof need not attain mathematical precision.

Conclusion: The contravention under Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved and the impugned penalty and confiscation order were upheld against the appellant.

---