Pakistani refugee who became Indian citizen wins appeal against additional FEMA penalty for property purchase

The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA, New Delhi allowed the appeal of a Pakistani national who purchased immovable properties in Dehradun without RBI permission under FEMA regulations. The appellant, a Hindu refugee who arrived in India in 1992 seeking political asylum and later obtained citizenship, had already paid the original penalty of Rs. 3,00,000. The Tribunal found that considering the appellant's background as a persecuted refugee, eventual naturalization, and payment of the initial penalty, the additional penalty of Rs. 50,000 was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the further penalty while acknowledging that ignorance of law is no defense, concluding that justice was served with the original penalty payment.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of regulation 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000; Appeal against penalty imposition; Consideration of citizenship status in penalty imposition; Justification of penalty imposition; Ignorance of law as a defense; Grant of relief based on circumstances.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal arising from a penalty imposed on the appellant for contravention of regulation 7 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000. The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan, purchased property in India without obtaining necessary permissions. The Adjudicating Authority initially imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which was paid by the appellant. Subsequently, a further penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed, leading to an appeal challenging this additional penalty.

The appellant argued that he had been granted Indian citizenship and the property transaction should be considered regularized. He contended that no foreign exchange was involved as the property was purchased using funds earned in India. The appellant emphasized his compliance with immigration laws, lack of mens rea, and cited legal precedents supporting leniency for technical breaches. The respondent, however, argued that ignorance of the law is not a defense and supported the imposition of the additional penalty.

The tribunal considered the appellant's background, including political asylum in India, grant of citizenship, and the objective of FEMA, 1999. Despite acknowledging that ignorance of the law is not a defense, the tribunal found that the original penalty had been paid, and the further penalty was unwarranted. The tribunal set aside the additional penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, granting relief to the appellant based on the circumstances and objectives of the legislation.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the additional penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Special Director of Enforcement (Appeals). The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the appellant's situation, the legal framework, and the objectives of the foreign exchange regulations, ultimately granting relief to the appellant in this case.

---