Reasoned evidence is essential for penalty orders; bare findings of abetment cannot sustain adverse action.

An adverse penalty for alleged contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 must rest on a reasoned discussion of the evidence linking the person to the contravention. The tribunal noted that the impugned order merely stated that the appellant had aided and abetted the transactions and handled money, but did not analyse the evidence supporting that finding. In the absence of such evidentiary reasoning, the finding could not stand, and the penalty was held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant for alleged contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be sustained when the impugned order did not discuss the evidence said to support the finding against him.

Analysis: The order recorded a conclusion that the appellant had aided and abetted the alleged transactions and had received and passed on money, but it did not show any discussion of the evidence linking the appellant to the alleged contravention. In the absence of an evidentiary analysis supporting the adverse finding, the conclusion against the appellant could not stand.

Conclusion: The finding and penalty against the appellant were unsustainable and were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: An adverse penalty order must be supported by a reasoned discussion of the evidence establishing the alleged contravention; a bare conclusion without such analysis cannot be sustained.

---