2025 (12) TMI 1472 - AT - FEMA

Penalty for undervalued export proceeds u/s13(1) FEMA-appeal to enhance penalty dismissed as quantum is discretionary.

The dominant issue was whether the appellate forum should enhance the penalty for export proceeds undervaluation on the ground that the Adjudicating ... Enhancement of the penalty up to three times the amount of contravention - Export proceeds - undervaluation - penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority is low and is not commensurate - HELD THAT:- On reading of Section 13(1) of FEMA, it is obvious that the maximum amount of penalty which can be imposed under the Section is three times the amount of contravention involved. From the language of the Section, it is clear that the Section has not prescribed either a fixed amount of penalty or minimum amount of penalty. It therefore, follows that the amount of the penalty which is to be imposed by the Adjudicating Authority is a matter of discretion which, of course, is necessarily required to be exercised judiciously after taking into account the facts of the case and the evidence placed before it. We find that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has made detailed findings in the Impugned Order. Given the facts of the case and the evidence placed before the Adjudicating Authority, we do not find that the Impugned Order is indiscreet. In fact, it is well reasoned and speaking. It is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has not only taken notice of the facts of the case but also has evaluated the evidence on record. In any case, there is no such requirement under the statute as to impose maximum penalty, as long as each contravention has been examined and if found established has attracted penalty. The reading of the Adjudication Order, therefore, reflects objectivity and judiciousness on the part of the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the adjudicating authority's exercise of discretion under Section 13(1) of FEMA in imposing penalties lower than the quantified sum involved warranted appellate enhancement on the ground that the penalty was not 'commensurate' with the contravention amount. (ii) Whether dropping proceedings for penalty under Section 42 of FEMA against an officer of the company was justified for want of material evidence, despite allegations that he handled export negotiations and was involved in the contravention. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Enhancement of penalty under Section 13(1) FEMA for being allegedly too low Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal considered Section 13(1) of FEMA and noted that it provides a penalty 'up to thrice the sum involved' where quantifiable, indicating a maximum limit and not a fixed or minimum penalty. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that Section 13(1) confers discretion on the adjudicating authority regarding the quantum of penalty, which must be exercised judiciously based on the facts and evidence. It found that the adjudication order contained detailed findings on under-valuation and non-realisation of export proceeds to the extent of commission not reflected in invoice value. The Tribunal also noted that the adjudicating authority took into account relevant surrounding circumstances (including that penalties had been imposed under another statute after differential duty and interest were paid), and that the adjudicating authority had rejected the contention that FEMA action was barred by those proceedings. The Tribunal reasoned that the appellate request for enhancement was essentially premised on a subjective assessment of what is 'low' or 'high' and that the statute does not require the maximum penalty to be imposed merely because the contravention amount is large. It further found no indiscretion in the reasoning or approach adopted by the adjudicating authority. Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to enhance the penalties and upheld the adjudicating authority's quantified penalties as a judicious exercise of discretion; the challenge seeking enhancement was rejected. Issue (ii): Dropping penalty proceedings against the company officer under Section 42 FEMA Legal framework (as applied): The Tribunal addressed liability for penalty under Section 42 of FEMA in relation to a company officer, focusing on whether material evidence established involvement sufficient to sustain penalty. Interpretation and reasoning: On review of the record and the adjudication order, the Tribunal found that no material evidence was established against the officer concerned. While it was noted that he negotiated with foreign buyers, the adjudicating authority had found that the outcome of negotiations was finally decided by the managing head of the company. The adjudicating authority had therefore dropped the charges due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal expressly agreed with this evidentiary assessment and found no basis to interfere. Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed the dropping of charges against the officer for want of material evidence and refused to impose any penalty on him.