Suspicion cannot sustain foreign exchange penalty without evidence; tribunal set aside the adverse order for lack of proof.

A penalty for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot be sustained without verbal or documentary evidence establishing the charge. The tribunal found that the adjudication rested only on receipt of certain amounts in the appellant's name and an inference that she had acknowledged a debt in favour of foreign residents, but the record disclosed no direct proof and no complete evidentiary chain. Mere suspicion, however strong, could not replace proof. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be sustained in the absence of verbal or documentary evidence and on the basis of suspicion and surmise alone.

Analysis: The adjudication rested only on the receipt of certain amounts in the appellant's name and on an inference that she must have acknowledged a debt in favour of foreign residents. There was no direct evidence proving the alleged acknowledgement of debt. The material on record showed only grave suspicion, and not proof. The decision-maker could not validly impose an adverse penalty without a factual foundation, because suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. The case did not disclose a complete evidentiary chain capable of supporting the finding.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable and was set aside; the appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was quashed for want of evidence, and the appellant obtained complete relief against the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse penalty cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or surmise; a finding of contravention must rest on evidence establishing the charge.

---