Foreign exchange contravention requires reliable proof; discarded coerced statements and unexplained delay defeated the appeal.

An appeal under SAFEMA failed where an 838-day delay in filing was not condoned because the explanation was not cogent and government delay alone was insufficient. On merits, alleged contravention of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA was not proved, as the essential ingredients were not established on the facts and material relied upon. The Tribunal noted that no reliable independent evidence showed receipt or payment involving a person resident outside India, and a statement earlier discarded by the Supreme Court for coercion and duress could not by itself sustain liability. The penalty was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the inordinate delay of 838 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the facts and material relied upon.

Issue (i): Whether the inordinate delay of 838 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was substantial and the explanation offered was not found to be cogent. The Tribunal noted that Governmental delay by itself does not justify condonation where the delay remains unexplained and the matter also lacks merit.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the facts and material relied upon.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the essential ingredients of the alleged contravention were not established, as the appellant failed to show receipt of payment from or payment on behalf of a person resident outside India. It further held that the statement relied upon had already been discarded by the Supreme Court as having been recorded under coercion and duress, and no independent material was produced to sustain the penalty.

Conclusion: The alleged contravention was not proved and the penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on limitation and on merits, and the adjudication in favour of the respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for contravention of foreign exchange restrictions cannot be sustained unless the statutory ingredients are proved by reliable material, and a discarded confession obtained under coercion cannot by itself support liability.

---