SAFEMA Tribunal reduces penalty to Rs. 10 lakh considering appellant's death and 19-year delay under Section 9(1)(f)(i) FERA 1973

The Appellate Tribunal SAFEMA upheld the Adjudicating Authority's finding that the Appellant violated Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973 based on seized documents and corroborative statements. Despite the Appellant's denial of arranging foreign exchange transactions, the Authority found sufficient evidence including admissions of payments and contemporaneous evidence. The Tribunal rejected the cross-examination challenge and confirmed guilt. However, considering the Appellant's death in 2008, 19-year delay, and 20% pre-deposit, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000 in the interest of justice.

---

---

Issues:
1. Violation of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973
2. Denial of cross-examination and violation of principles of natural justice

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an order imposing a penalty on the Appellant for contravening Section 9(1)(f)(i) of FERA 1973. The Appellant, along with other individuals, was alleged to be involved in a transaction related to the purchase of shares and transfer of funds overseas. The Adjudicating Authority based its decision on seized documents, statements of involved parties, and corroborating evidence. Despite the Appellant denying arranging any foreign exchange transaction, the Authority found sufficient evidence to uphold the penalty. The Tribunal noted the Authority's findings and upheld the penalty, considering the evidence presented.

Issue 2: Denial of cross-examination and violation of principles of natural justice
The Appellant contended that the denial of cross-examination violated the principles of natural justice. The Adjudicating Authority had not allowed cross-examination during the proceedings, citing that the accused cannot claim it as a right under FERA 1973. The Authority provided the Appellant with relevant statements and documents but denied cross-examination. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments emphasizing that the disclosure of documents and the opportunity to explain them constituted substantial compliance with natural justice. The Tribunal found that the denial of cross-examination did not prejudice the Appellant's case, as there was enough evidence to support the penalty. The Tribunal upheld the Authority's decision but reduced the penalty amount due to mitigating circumstances and the Appellant's demise.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the penalty amount to the pre-deposit made by the Appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence, compliance with legal procedures, and the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority in allowing cross-examination.

---