Reasonable period for foreign exchange penalty proceedings: excessive delay and technical breach can make penalty unsustainable

A penal adjudication under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act must be initiated and pursued within a reasonable period even where no express limitation period is prescribed; a delay of more than nine years was treated as unfair and fatal to the penalty. The text also states that where the alleged breach was technical or trivial, the related charge had already been dropped for want of mala fide intention, and the conduct did not show conscious or deliberate wrongdoing, penalty was unwarranted. The consequence noted is that the penalty order was set aside and the amount deposited was refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustainable in view of the delay in initiating adjudication proceedings; (ii) Whether the nature of the alleged contravention and the related exoneration on the connected charge justified imposition of penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustainable in view of the delay in initiating adjudication proceedings.

Analysis: The adjudication proceedings were initiated after a lapse of more than nine years from the reply to the show cause notice. Where a statutory power is exercisable without a prescribed time limit, it must nevertheless be invoked within a reasonable period. Such delay in taking action undermines the fairness of the proceeding and weighs against sustaining the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the nature of the alleged contravention and the related exoneration on the connected charge justified imposition of penalty.

Analysis: The amount had originally been deposited when the concerned person was resident in India and was later transferred in the course of clearing the account. The connected charge under section 9(1)(a) had already been dropped because there was no mala fide intention. In these circumstances, the alleged breach under section 9(1)(e) was treated as minor and not warranting penalty, particularly where the conduct did not show conscious or deliberate wrongdoing.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty order was set aside, with consequential refund of the amount already deposited.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal adjudication under a fiscal regulatory statute must be initiated and pursued within a reasonable period, and a penalty is unwarranted where the alleged contravention is technical, trivial, and unsupported by mala fide or deliberate breach.

---