Corroborated evidence and a specific finding are required to sustain a foreign exchange penalty under FERA.

A penalty under foreign exchange law could not be sustained where the adjudicating authority failed to record a finding on the specific charge and the material relied upon was not corroborated. The tribunal noted that the allegation under section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973 was based on a vague statement, without supporting evidence linking the appellant to receipt of payment on behalf of a non-resident. It also found that documents used against the appellant were not shown to him during investigation or explained to him. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty could be sustained when the adjudicating authority did not record a finding on the specific charge and the material relied upon lacked corroboration.

Analysis: The appeal turned on a specific allegation under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 that the appellant had received payment on behalf of a non-resident on the instruction of another person. The statement relied upon was found to be vague and there was no corroboration for the version implicating the appellant. The documents used against the appellant were not shown to him during investigation nor was he called upon to explain them, and the adjudicating authority did not record a finding on the precise charge that formed the basis of the penalty.

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

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded because the adjudication failed to establish the charged contravention on the evidence and no finding was recorded on the specific allegation.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under foreign exchange law cannot be sustained unless the specific charge is established by cogent and corroborated material and the adjudicating authority records a finding on that charge.

---