Actual import and secondary evidence under FERA must be properly examined before penalties can be sustained.

Where alleged contravention under FERA depends on proof of actual import, the authority must base findings on reliable evidence and cannot sustain penalties merely because the original exchange control copy of the bill of entry is absent. The record did not conclusively disprove import of the goods, and the decision-maker failed to examine whether photocopies could be admitted as secondary evidence, whether the original had been lost or destroyed without fault, and whether bank records required further verification. The penalty order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to lead further evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, together with section 68(1) and section 68(2), was established on the material on record, and whether the penalties could be sustained without properly examining the admissibility of secondary evidence and the question whether the goods were actually imported.

Analysis: The record did not conclusively show that the goods purchased out of the foreign exchange remittance were not actually imported. The finding against the appellants turned substantially on the absence of the original exchange control copy of the bill of entry, yet the order did not adequately examine whether the photocopy or true copy could be treated as secondary evidence, whether the primary evidence had been lost or destroyed without fault of the appellants, or whether the bank records should have been further verified. The issue of actual import could also be proved by means other than the original bill of entry, and the appellants were not given a fully effective opportunity to establish the factual position by additional evidence.

Conclusion: The contravention was not effectively determined, and the penalty order could not be sustained on the existing material.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication with opportunity to lead further evidence and a reasoned determination on actual import and admissibility of secondary evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged contravention depends on proof of actual import, the authority must decide the factual issue on reliable evidence and cannot sustain penalties merely on the absence of the original document without examining whether secondary evidence is admissible and whether further evidence should be allowed.

---