Abetment under foreign exchange law requires more than a recommendatory letter; bare forwarding alone was insufficient for penalty.

A bare recommendatory communication, without evidence of conspiracy, instigation, or other culpable participation, is insufficient to fasten liability for abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The tribunal found that forwarding a letter recommending a facility against a letter of credit did not by itself amount to contravention, because the recipient was expected to exercise its own due diligence and the record showed no additional blameworthy conduct. On that basis, the penalty and adverse findings were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's recommendatory letter amounted to abetment or contravention attracting penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The penalty was founded on the appellant's forwarding of a letter recommending facility against a letter of credit. The record did not show any conspiracy, instigation, or other additional conduct beyond the recommendation itself. Mere forwarding of a communication, without more, was held insufficient to fasten liability for abetment, and the receiving party was expected to exercise its own due diligence. On that footing, the appellant's conduct was not found blameworthy under the Act.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant. The penalty and adverse findings against the appellant were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act cannot rest on a bare recommendatory communication unless there is further material showing instigation, conspiracy, or other culpable participation.

---