Foreign exchange contravention requires proved facts; unsupported abetment and commission shortfall findings could not sustain penalty.

Abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be sustained where the recorded facts did not show any proved contravention by the principal offender and the appellant's role only related to an authorised intermediary remittance. Liability for alleged non-repatriation of commission earnings also failed because the factual basis was incomplete: the commission actually earned, contractual rate, imports, and remittances received were not properly determined, and additional remittances and bank certificates were not adequately considered. On that material, the charges under sections 9(1)(a), 16(1)(a), 64(2), and 68(1) were not established, and the penalty order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was guilty of abetment of contravention under section 9(1)(a) read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the appellant was liable for contravention of section 16(1)(a) read with section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the alleged shortfall in repatriation of commission earnings.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was guilty of abetment of contravention under section 9(1)(a) read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The finding of abetment could not stand on the facts recorded in the adjudication order. The remittance of US $20,000 through the intermediary channel was treated as authorised, and the role attributed to the appellant did not establish that he had abetted any proved contravention by the alleged principal offender. On the authority's own findings, if any abetment existed, it would attach to the intermediary conduct and not to the appellant.

Conclusion: The charge under section 9(1)(a) read with section 64(2) was not made out against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was liable for contravention of section 16(1)(a) read with section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the alleged shortfall in repatriation of commission earnings.

Analysis: A finding of non-repatriation required a proper determination of the commission actually earned, the contractual rate, the imports made, and the remittances received. The record showed additional remittances and bank certificates that were not properly taken into account, and the conclusion that commission remained to be repatriated was therefore unsupported by correct factual appreciation. In the absence of reliable evidence of any enforceable basis for the alleged balance, the contravention was not sustainable, and the linked liability under section 68(1) did not arise.

Conclusion: The charge under section 16(1)(a), and consequently the invocation of section 68(1), was not established against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order could not survive on either of the substantive charges, and the appellants were entitled to refund of the pre-deposit amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of contravention or abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 must rest on established facts showing the specific offending conduct and, where commission earnings are alleged, on a proper determination of the foreign exchange actually due and received; unsupported or incomplete factual appreciation cannot sustain penalty.

---