Appeal dismissed as payments via unauthorised channels held to violate section 3(b) FEMA, 1999 for import transactions

The AT upheld the adjudicating authority's finding that the appellant contravened s. 3(b) FEMA, 1999 by making payments to overseas suppliers through unauthorised, non-banking channels for import of photocopier components and sub-assemblies. Relying on seized documents, third-party records, and the appellant's own statements before DGCEI and ED, the AT held that imports were in fact routed through multiple concerns floated by the appellant and that no legitimate remittances were made. The plea that no imports occurred and that only dismantled local components were dealt with was rejected. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice, including use of case law, was found unsustainable. The appeal and pending applications were dismissed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the appellant's retracted statements under FEMA and earlier statements before DGCEI, alleged to be coerced, could be relied upon to establish contravention of Section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999.

1.2 Whether denial of cross-examination of third-party witnesses whose statements were relied upon in adjudication violated principles of natural justice and vitiated the penalty.

1.3 Whether statements, records, and findings gathered by DGCEI under Customs/Central Excise laws, and proceedings before the Settlement Commission, could validly be used as material in FEMA adjudication.

1.4 Whether, on the evidence on record, imports and non-channelised payments for those imports were established, and whether the burden of proof was correctly applied in holding the appellant guilty of contravention of Section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Use of retracted and prior statements to establish contravention under Section 3(b) FEMA

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Tribunal considered the law on retracted confessions and voluntariness of statements as discussed in precedent, including that (a) a retracted confession is not automatically involuntary; (b) the maker alleging coercion must establish it; (c) authorities must apply their mind to the retraction and record reasons if they choose to rely on the inculpatory statement; and (d) a retracted confession can be used if substantially corroborated by independent and cogent evidence.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Tribunal distinguished precedents relied on by the appellant (including those where the impugned statements were either not referred to in the initiating memorandum, were recorded while the person was in custody, or where immediate retraction and illegal detention were established). It held those factual matrices did not exist here.

2.3 The Tribunal noted: (i) DGCEI recorded statements in 2003; (ii) ED recorded detailed statements in 2011; (iii) there was a long time gap between DGCEI and ED statements; and (iv) by 2011 any alleged threat or coercion from 2003 could reasonably have been overcome. Yet the appellant gave elaborate admissions before ED, expressly affirming and adopting earlier DGCEI statements.

2.4 The appellant's statements before ED (30.06.2011 and 14.11.2011) were found to contain: (a) admissions of floating multiple entities in the names of relatives and employees; (b) admissions that he controlled their affairs, imports, negotiations with overseas suppliers, assembly, and sale of refurbished photocopiers; (c) acceptance of his role as beneficiary; (d) admission that bills of entry and connected documents were destroyed on his instructions; (e) clear admissions that in "majority" and ultimately "all" imports, payments were made through hawala/illegal channels to overseas suppliers or their representatives; and (f) acceptance of the quantified import value based on the worksheet showing 13 companies and total import value.

2.5 The Tribunal recorded that the adjudicating authority had expressly examined the credibility of these statements, considered the alleged retraction, and rejected the plea of coercion after correlating the statements with seized materials and bank information.

2.6 The Tribunal further held that the confessional statements were corroborated by independent documentary evidence: seized DGCEI files containing bills of entry and orders in original in the names of entities floated by the appellant; bank statements showing cash credits/debits without overseas remittances; commercial tax documents including bills of lading and correspondence indicating imports; and other seized materials tying the appellant to the importing entities.

Conclusions

2.7 The Tribunal concluded that: (a) the appellant failed to establish that his statements were obtained by threat, coercion, or improper means; (b) mere retraction did not render the statements involuntary; (c) the adjudicating authority had properly applied its mind to the retraction and found the statements voluntary; and (d) in any event, the inculpatory statements were sufficiently corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. The statements were therefore legally admissible and could be relied upon to sustain the finding of contravention under Section 3(b) of FEMA.

Issue 2 - Denial of cross-examination and principles of natural justice

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had refused cross-examination of third-party witnesses (including statements of associated persons and a forex dealer) on the ground that such statements were only corroborative and not solely relied upon, citing certain judicial decisions to justify denial.

2.9 The Tribunal, after considering precedents on cross-examination and natural justice, held that where the adjudicating authority proposes to rely on statements of third parties and a specific request for cross-examination is made, an opportunity of cross-examination "ought to have been given." It found that reliance on such statements, without allowing cross-examination, was "questionable," and those statements could not, by themselves, be taken as good evidence for imposition of penalty.

2.10 However, the Tribunal observed that the enforcement case did not rest solely, or even primarily, on third-party statements. The core basis comprised incriminating seized materials, the appellant's own statements before DGCEI (never retracted) and ED, and banking information demonstrating absence of authorised remittances.

Conclusions

2.11 The Tribunal held that although denial of cross-examination rendered the use of third-party statements as substantive evidence questionable, the contravention under Section 3(b) remained independently established on the strength of the appellant's own admissions and documentary evidence. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were not vitiated on this ground.

Issue 3 - Use of DGCEI materials and proceedings under other statutes in FEMA adjudication

Interpretation and reasoning

2.12 The appellant argued that statements and documents collected by DGCEI under Customs/Central Excise laws, and facts relating to proceedings before the Settlement Commission, were "alien" to FEMA and could not be used in FEMA adjudication. Reliance was placed on decisions concerning the inadmissibility of statements recorded under other enactments in certain criminal prosecutions and on the alleged impermissibility of cross-use of material between distinct statutory regimes.

2.13 The Tribunal examined the cited cases and held:

(a) The decision concerning prosecution for perjury under the Income-tax Act and CrPC turned on the impropriety of launching a perjury prosecution in one regime based solely on statements recorded under another; that ratio, addressed to criminal prosecution, did not govern a civil penalty proceeding under FEMA, where the standard of proof and nature of sanction are different.

(b) In the present matter, there was no criminal prosecution; it was a penalty adjudication. Moreover, the appellant's statements before DGCEI had not been retracted, and ED had independently recorded his statements under FEMA and examined his conduct.

(c) The decision involving NDPS and Customs concerned the status of customs officers as "police officers" for the purpose of applying Section 25 of the Evidence Act in criminal prosecutions, and the specific statutory scheme of NDPS. It did not prohibit use of customs-derived material in a distinct, civil adjudicatory context under FEMA.

(d) The decision on the effect of exoneration under the Customs Act held, in fact, that penalty proceedings under customs and under foreign exchange law operate in different fields and that an outcome under one statute does not bar action under the other. The Tribunal treated this as supporting the view that enforcement authorities under FEMA may proceed independently even where customs proceedings have a different outcome.

2.14 The Tribunal further relied on a High Court decision explicitly recognising that statements made to DRI can be used in proceedings under FEMA.

2.15 On this basis, the Tribunal held that ED was entitled to refer to and rely upon: (a) statements recorded by DGCEI; (b) documents seized in DGCEI proceedings; and (c) factual findings recorded in those proceedings, while independently adjudicating contravention under FEMA. The use of such material did not amount to impermissible cross-application of "alien" enactments.

Conclusions

2.16 The Tribunal concluded that reliance on DGCEI materials and references to Settlement Commission-related facts was legally permissible for FEMA adjudication, and the appellant's challenge on the "alien enactment" ground failed.

Issue 4 - Proof of imports, non-remittance through authorised channels, and burden of proof under Section 3(b) FEMA

Interpretation and reasoning

2.17 The appellant contended that: (a) no imports had been made by him; he merely procured dismantled components domestically and sold reconditioned machines; (b) if any imports existed, they were by distinct companies whose proprietors/directors should have been investigated; (c) no confirmations from foreign suppliers of receipt of payments outside banking channels existed; and (d) no specific identification of the persons to whom illicit payments were made had been established, rendering Section 3(b) inapplicable.

2.18 The Tribunal rejected these contentions, relying on documentary and oral evidence, including:

(a) Seized DGCEI files from the appellant's residence containing copies of orders-in-original and bills of entry for imports in the names of concerns such as Infotech Services, Bharat Agency, Rainbow Traders, Crystal Systems & Services, etc., which were admitted to have been floated and controlled by the appellant.

(b) Seized bank statements showing cash deposits and withdrawals in accounts of these concerns without any corresponding authorised overseas remittances to suppliers.

(c) Documents seized by Commercial Tax authorities, including a bill of lading evidencing import of used computer/photocopier parts by entities operating from premises connected with the appellant and letters showing use of imports as security for bank funding for import and sale of photocopier machines.

(d) The appellant's own statements admitting: operation of a network of 13 companies floated in the names of relatives and employees; use of these companies to import second-hand photocopier components in CKD/SKD condition to circumvent EXIM restrictions; assembly and sale of refurbished photocopiers; destruction of import documents; negotiation with overseas suppliers and their representatives; and that all import payments were ultimately settled in cash in India through hawala/illegal channels payable to suppliers or their representatives (including local representatives "Surya" and "Jefri").

2.19 The Tribunal held that, given these admissions and documents, there was no real dispute that imports had taken place in the names of entities floated and controlled by the appellant, and that he was the effective importer and beneficiary. In such circumstances, there should have been banking records showing authorised payments through AD banks; however, enquiries with the banks yielded categorical replies that no overseas remittances had been made for these imports on behalf of the appellant or the concerned entities.

2.20 On the burden of proof, the Tribunal accepted the adjudicating authority's approach that, once (a) imports in fact were established; (b) the appellant admitted responsibility for those imports; and (c) AD banks confirmed absence of any authorised foreign exchange remittances, the evidentiary burden shifted to the appellant to show legitimate payment through authorised channels. The appellant failed to produce any such documentary proof, despite being given time and himself admitting he had never submitted import documents to banks for effecting payments.

2.21 The Tribunal also rejected the argument that lack of confirmations from foreign suppliers or non-identification of every individual payee in India defeated the contravention. It held that, on the preponderance of probabilities, the combination of seized import documents, banking records showing no authorised remittances, and the appellant's own detailed admissions of cash settlement in India with representatives of overseas suppliers was sufficient to prove that foreign exchange was, in effect, acquired and dealt with through unauthorised channels in contravention of Section 3(b).

Conclusions

2.22 The Tribunal concluded that:

(a) Imports of photocopier components and sub-assemblies through multiple entities floated by the appellant were proved by seized documents and corroborated by the appellant's admissions.

(b) No payments for these imports were made through authorised banking channels, as evidenced by bank replies and the appellant's own admissions.

(c) The evidentiary burden having shifted to the appellant, he failed to establish lawful payment through authorised means.

(d) On the preponderance of probabilities, the case that the appellant made payments in India to representatives of overseas suppliers through hawala/illegal channels, thereby contravening Section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999, was sufficiently established.

2.23 On this basis, the Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority rightly found the appellant guilty of contravention of Section 3(b) of FEMA, 1999 to the extent of the quantified imports and that the penalty imposed under Section 13(1) was justified. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

---