SAFEMA tribunal confirms FEMA violations for plastic granule import misdeclaration but reduces undervaluation penalty from Rs 60 lakh to Rs 30 lakh

The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld violations of FEMA 1999 involving misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported plastic granules through hawala channels. The tribunal found sufficient evidence based on email communications and statements proving contraventions under sections 3(d) and 4 of FEMA on preponderance of probabilities. While confirming the violations, the tribunal reduced the penalty for undervaluation from Rs. 60,00,000 to Rs. 30,00,000, considering it excessive. Penalties of Rs. 10,000 each for non-surrender of foreign exchange and illegal possession of foreign currency were upheld, along with confiscation of the foreign exchange.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in the judgment are:

(a) Whether the appellant engaged in misdeclaration and gross undervaluation of imported goods in violation of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA, 1999) and related provisions;

(b) Whether the appellant remitted the differential value of imports through unauthorized/hawala channels, thereby contravening Section 4 of FEMA, 1999;

(c) Whether the appellant failed to surrender foreign currency within the stipulated time under Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6A of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000;

(d) The correctness and sustainability of the quantification method adopted for undervaluation and the imposition of penalty under Section 13(1) of FEMA, 1999;

(e) Whether the confiscation of seized foreign currencies under Section 13(2) of FEMA, 1999 was justified and whether the discretion to confiscate was exercised judiciously;

(f) Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of Indian currency seized during the search operation;

(g) The evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 37 of FEMA, especially when such statements were retracted;

(h) Whether principles of natural justice were complied with during adjudication, including opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and rebut evidence.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

(a) Misdeclaration and Undervaluation of Imports (Section 3(d) of FEMA, 1999)

The legal framework involves Section 3(d) of FEMA, which prohibits contraventions relating to foreign exchange transactions including undervaluation of imports. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) relied on seized emails, documents, and statements to establish that the appellant requested overseas suppliers to under-invoice imported goods, specifically reprocessed plastic granules, to reduce Customs duty liability. The appellant used the Import-Export Codes (IECs) of other firms to execute imports, further complicating the scheme.

The Court examined the appellant's own statement dated 02.06.2009, where he admitted to under-invoicing ranging from 40-50% initially and 50-60% subsequently, and paying the differential in Indian currency to local agents who facilitated unauthorized foreign exchange transfers abroad. Although the appellant retracted this statement the next day, the statements of other proprietors whose IECs were misused remained unretracted and corroborated the modus operandi.

Seized emails demonstrated negotiations to misclassify goods (e.g., from 'LDPE White' to 'Reprocessed LDPE') and to mention lower invoice values. The Court found these communications persuasive evidence of deliberate undervaluation.

The appellant challenged the quantification of undervaluation, arguing that it was based on ambiguous documents and his own retracted statement, lacking independent corroboration. The ED justified the quantification by reference to a similar case investigated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) involving similar goods and suppliers, where actual market prices were established and used as contemporaneous price evidence. The methodology involved applying average undervaluation percentages (45% and 55%) based on available evidence and the appellant's admissions.

The Court accepted the ED's approach as reasonable on the preponderance of probabilities, given the nature of evidence and the similarity to the DRI case. It rejected the appellant's argument that suspicion or assumption cannot substitute for proof, noting that the average percentage method was a practical necessity due to destruction of some records and lack of specific price data for each consignment. The Court also held that the appellant's retraction did not nullify the evidentiary value of his initial admissions, relying on Supreme Court precedent that retracted statements can be relied upon if found true and voluntary.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the appellant contravened Section 3(d) of FEMA by misdeclaring and undervaluing imports and remitting differential payments through unauthorized channels.

(b) Unauthorized Remittance of Foreign Exchange (Section 4 of FEMA, 1999)

Section 4 prohibits unauthorized dealings in foreign exchange. The appellant was found to have possessed foreign currency (US$, Malaysian Ringgit, Singapore Dollar) without authorization and failed to produce satisfactory evidence of lawful acquisition. The appellant contended that the foreign currencies were purchased for business purposes and accounted for, but failed to substantiate this claim with documents.

The Court upheld the adjudicating authority's finding that the appellant was guilty of contravening Section 4 of FEMA and liable for penalty and confiscation of the foreign currency seized. The Court noted that possession without proper documentation and failure to surrender or account for foreign currency is a clear violation.

(c) Failure to Surrender Foreign Currency within 180 Days (Section 10(6) r/w Regulation 6A)

The appellant and his wife had acquired certain foreign currencies during 2008 but failed to surrender them to authorized persons within 180 days as mandated. The Court observed that this requirement is mandatory and applies even if the foreign exchange was acquired lawfully from authorized dealers.

The Court upheld the penalty imposed for this contravention, emphasizing the statutory obligation to surrender foreign currency within the prescribed timeframe.

(d) Quantification of Undervaluation and Penalty Imposition

The appellant challenged the quantification method, arguing that it was based on assumptions and his retracted statement, and that no independent documentary evidence linked the undervaluation precisely to each consignment. He also pointed out inconsistencies between the valuation adopted by Customs and the Enforcement Directorate.

The Court acknowledged the appellant's concerns but found that the ED's method was justified by reference to a closely analogous DRI case with similar goods, suppliers, and import periods. The Court noted that exact quantification was difficult due to destruction of evidence and incomplete records, and that the average percentage method was a reasonable approach.

However, the Court found the penalty of Rs. 60,00,000/- imposed under Section 13(1) of FEMA to be disproportionately high relative to the facts and circumstances. Exercising its discretion, the Court reduced the penalty to Rs. 30,00,000/- while upholding the finding of contravention.

(e) Confiscation of Foreign Currencies and Exercise of Discretion

The appellant contended that confiscation of foreign currencies was not mandatory under Section 13(2) of FEMA and that the adjudicating authority failed to exercise discretion judiciously or provide reasons for confiscation. He also claimed that the foreign currencies were properly accounted and purchased for business purposes.

The Court held that confiscation under Section 13(2) is discretionary and not mandatory. However, given the appellant's failure to provide satisfactory evidence for lawful possession and surrender, the Court found no error in confiscation. The Court noted that mere production of bills without corroborative evidence was insufficient to negate the contravention.

(f) Seizure and Refund of Indian Currency

The appellant argued that Indian currency of Rs. 11,60,000/- seized during the search was not subject to confiscation as no such proposal was made in the show cause notice and that the adjudicating authority was silent on its disposal. He sought refund with interest.

The Court observed that the adjudicating authority did not confiscate this amount but also did not return it. The Court directed that this amount, along with the pre-deposited penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/-, be adjusted towards the penalty amount payable by the appellant, implying that the seized Indian currency should be returned or accounted for accordingly.

(g) Evidentiary Value of Statements under Section 37 of FEMA and Retraction

The appellant retracted his statements recorded under Section 37 of FEMA, alleging coercion and improper means. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedent which holds that a retracted statement may still be relied upon if found to be voluntary and true, and that the authority must consider the retraction and record reasons if it rejects it.

The Court found that the appellant's retraction was immediate and unsubstantiated, while other statements by proprietors of firms whose IECs were misused remained intact and corroborated the appellant's admissions. The Court thus accorded evidentiary value to the statements despite retraction.

(h) Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice

The appellant contended that he was denied opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and rebut evidence, and that notices were not issued to other firms whose IECs were used. The Court noted these submissions but found that the adjudication proceedings complied with natural justice principles. The appellant appeared and gave statements, and the adjudicating authority considered all evidence on record. The presumption of truth under Section 39 of FEMA was applied appropriately.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The statements made by the appellant under Section 37 of FEMA, even if retracted, can be relied upon if found to be true and voluntarily made, and the authority must consider the retraction and record reasons before rejecting it."

"Quantification of undervaluation based on average percentage determined through contemporaneous evidence from a similar case and appellant's own admissions is a reasonable and sustainable method on the preponderance of probabilities in the absence of exact documentary evidence."

"Confiscation of foreign currency under Section 13(2) of FEMA is discretionary, and the exercise of such discretion must be judicious; however, in the absence of satisfactory proof of lawful possession and surrender, confiscation is justified."

"Failure to surrender foreign currency within 180 days under Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6A of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000, attracts penalty even if the currency was acquired lawfully."

"Penalty imposed under Section 13(1) of FEMA for contravention of Section 3(d) must be proportionate to the facts and circumstances; an excessive penalty can be reduced in exercise of appellate discretion."

Final determinations:

(i) The appellant was found guilty of contravening Section 3(d), Section 4, and Section 10(6) of FEMA, 1999;

(ii) The penalty of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 13(1) for undervaluation was reduced to Rs. 30,00,000/-;

(iii) Penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 13(2) for failure to surrender foreign currency and unauthorized possession were upheld;

(iv) Confiscation of foreign currencies seized was upheld;

(v) The Indian currency seized but not confiscated was to be adjusted towards penalty payable or returned accordingly.

---