Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was liable under the company-liability provision for non-realisation and repatriation of export proceeds; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was liable under the company-liability provision for non-realisation and repatriation of export proceeds.

Analysis: Liability for a company's FEMA contravention attaches to a person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business, or where the contravention is attributable to that person's consent, connivance, negligence or neglect. The appellant's authority to sign all export-related documents submitted to the bank, including documents connected with export transactions and bank-account operations, established responsibility that could not be wholly disowned. Although consent or connivance was not established, neglect could be attributed. FEMA contraventions attract civil penalties, including for technical or procedural non-compliance, without requiring mens rea.

Conclusion: The appellant was liable for the contravention due to neglect in relation to non-realisation of export proceeds; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed upon the appellant required reduction.

Analysis: The circumstances warranted limiting the monetary penalty to the amount already deposited by the appellant.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 75,000, being the pre-deposit amount; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was modified by retaining liability while substantially reducing the monetary penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A company officer authorised to execute export-related banking documents may incur liability for a company's FEMA contravention where neglect in discharge of that responsibility is established, even absent consent, connivance or mens rea.

Issues: (i) Whether the availability of criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars a petition under Section 482 of that Code; (ii) Whether failure to serve the mandatory opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 invalidates the complaints and summoning order; (iii) Whether the prolonged prosecution violated the appellants' right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the availability of criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars a petition under Section 482 of that Code.

Analysis: The revisional and inherent jurisdictions operate in distinct spheres. The availability of revision does not oust the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. A petition cannot be rejected solely because revision is available; where appropriate, its nomenclature may be converted to the proper jurisdiction rather than non-suiting the applicant on a technical ground.

Conclusion: Availability of revision under Section 397 does not bar consideration of a petition under Section 482. The finding is in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to serve the mandatory opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 invalidates the complaints and summoning order.

Analysis: The opportunity to establish the existence of requisite permission is a mandatory and meaningful precondition to prosecution for offences under Sections 56 and 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The prosecution must establish issuance and proper service of the notice, and the Magistrate must be satisfied of compliance before taking cognizance. The complaints neither disclosed the date of the alleged notice nor included it or proof of service; the respondents failed to produce these materials despite opportunity. Cognizance was therefore taken without satisfaction of the statutory condition and in breach of natural justice.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with the proviso to Section 61(2) rendered the cognizance and summoning order unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the prolonged prosecution violated the appellants' right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to speedy trial extends through all stages of criminal proceedings. Its infringement depends on a balancing assessment of the circumstances, including responsibility for delay, rather than delay alone. The complaints concerned transactions from 1991-1992 and, after their institution in 2002, remained substantially at the summons stage for over two decades. The record showed persistent and unexplained prosecutorial inaction in collecting and serving summons, pursuing process, and complying with time-bound directions, rather than delay attributable to the appellants or systemic constraints.

Conclusion: The continuation of the proceedings after the unexplained prosecutorial delay violated the appellants' right to a speedy trial. The finding is in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The statutory failure preceding cognizance, together with the violation of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, required termination of the criminal proceedings against the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot validly proceed without meaningful compliance with the mandatory opportunity requirement under the proviso to Section 61(2), and prolonged delay principally caused by prosecutorial inaction may warrant termination of proceedings as violating Article 21.

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants established that software was imported against the foreign-exchange remittances, so as to negate the alleged contravention; (ii) Whether the company's CEO and Director was personally liable for the company's contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants established that software was imported against the foreign-exchange remittances, so as to negate the alleged contravention.

Analysis: For non-physical software imports, the applicable Master Circular required certification that the software had actually been received, apart from keeping Customs authorities informed. The intimation furnished to Customs was not proof of import or acceptance of its contents. The Chartered Accountant's report pre-dated the claimed import and was a valuation report for acquisition and financing, not a certificate of actual receipt. The later IT expert certificate, based on CDs supplied by the company, did not prove import at the relevant time and itself recorded that one program set was non-functional. The evidence therefore failed to establish import of software corresponding to the remitted amount. The absence of a specified cross-examination request or resulting prejudice also did not invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged import was not proved; the contravention by the company stood established, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the company's CEO and Director was personally liable for the company's contravention.

Analysis: The individual appellant was CEO, Director, shareholder and joint authorised signatory for the company's bank accounts and outward-remittance documents. His statement acknowledged that the software received was without value. No evidence showed that he exercised due diligence to prevent the contravention.

Conclusion: The individual appellant was vicariously liable for the company's established contravention, against the individual appellant.

Final Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the individual appellant's liability were sustained, while the monetary penalties were substantially reduced in view of financial hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: In a non-physical import transaction, an intimation to Customs and documents not certifying actual receipt of the imported software do not discharge the importer's burden to prove import; an officer in charge of the company who authorised the remittances is liable absent proof of due diligence.

Issues: (i) Whether remittances made for staging the cricket tournament in South Africa constituted current account transactions or capital account transactions; (ii) whether the dedicated South African account and reimbursements to the service provider contravened foreign-currency-account and borrowing-or-lending restrictions; (iii) whether the post-tournament remittance from the EEFC account was permissible; (iv) whether delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds attracted liability; (v) whether non-repatriation of pouring-rights revenue attracted liability; (vi) whether credit of ticket-sale and VAT-refund proceeds to the EEFC account was impermissible; (vii) whether the authorised dealer bank and its officer were liable for processing the remittances; and (viii) whether the adjudication was vitiated by denial of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether remittances made for staging the cricket tournament in South Africa constituted current account transactions or capital account transactions.

Analysis: A capital account transaction requires an alteration of assets or liabilities, including contingent liabilities, outside India of a person resident in India. The agreement obligated the South African cricket body to provide stadia, tournament facilities and related services, for which fixed consideration and operational expenses were payable. The tournament and services were certain; absence of a detailed budget and payment in instalments did not create a contingent liability. Payments made during the agreement period were therefore connected with services in the ordinary course of business. No remittance was shown to have been made before the agreement was executed.

Conclusion: The remittances made during the agreement period were current account transactions, not capital account transactions, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the dedicated South African account and reimbursements to the service provider contravened foreign-currency-account and borrowing-or-lending restrictions.

Analysis: The dedicated account was used to meet expenditure incurred in conducting the tournament and did not establish an impermissible overseas account of the Indian entity. Payments to the service provider represented reimbursement of expenditure incurred for tournament services. There was no loan arrangement, repayment obligation or interest component to support a finding of borrowing or lending in foreign exchange. The statutory exemption concerning foreign exchange acquired for services was applicable.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention concerning the dedicated account and alleged borrowing or lending were set aside, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the post-tournament remittance from the EEFC account was permissible.

Analysis: Drawals from an EEFC account are exempt from prior-approval requirements under the Current Account Transactions Rules, subject to specified exceptions not applicable here. However, the amount properly due to the service provider in the accounts was substantially lower than the remittance made. The excess remittance was unsupported by the recorded liability.

Conclusion: Liability for the excess EEFC remittance was sustained against the principal entity and the responsible secretary and treasurer, against those appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds attracted liability.

Analysis: Ticket-sale proceeds were repatriated only after a delay exceeding a year from the end of the agreement. The asserted mingling of funds and settlement issues did not adequately justify the prolonged delay. Since the proceeds were eventually repatriated, the original penalty was disproportionate.

Conclusion: Contravention for delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds was sustained, but the penalties were substantially reduced; liability was set aside as against the suspended IPL chairman and retained at reduced levels against the principal entity, secretary and treasurer.

Issue (v): Whether non-repatriation of pouring-rights revenue attracted liability.

Analysis: The governing agreement did not confer an enforceable right on the Indian entity to receive pouring-rights revenue. The claim was resisted by stadium owners under the prevailing arrangement, and there was no established amount due or accrued which the Indian entity was obliged to realise and repatriate.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention concerning pouring-rights revenue and the related penalties were set aside, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (vi): Whether credit of ticket-sale and VAT-refund proceeds to the EEFC account was impermissible.

Analysis: The credit represented ticket-sale proceeds and VAT refund receivable under the agreement. The adjudicating authority incorrectly conflated that inward credit with a separate outward remittance made towards final tournament expenses. The receipt was a bona fide foreign-exchange earning and could not be treated as an impermissible EEFC credit.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and penalty concerning the EEFC credit were set aside, in favour of the appellants.

Issue (vii): Whether the authorised dealer bank and its officer were liable for processing the remittances.

Analysis: The remittances were current account transactions for which prior RBI permission was not required. The authorised dealer processed them after receiving the agreement, Form A-2 declarations and chartered accountant certificates, and the RBI raised no objection after reporting. These circumstances also satisfied the statutory safeguard requiring reasonable satisfaction by an authorised dealer.

Conclusion: The findings and penalties against the authorised dealer bank and its officer were set aside, in favour of those appellants.

Issue (viii): Whether the adjudication was vitiated by denial of natural justice.

Analysis: The record disclosed repeated hearing dates, adjournments sought by the noticees, written submissions and cross-examination of relevant witnesses. The final hearing was also fixed under a timeline directed by the High Court. The refusal of further requests did not establish denial of a fair opportunity.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice was rejected, against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Most findings and penalties arising from the characterisation of the tournament arrangements and related foreign-exchange transactions were annulled, while liability was confined to the unsupported excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation of ticket-sale proceeds, with reduced penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: A payment for definite services under an agreement does not become a capital account transaction merely because the expenditure was unbudgeted or paid in instalments; a contingent liability requires an uncertainty in the underlying obligation, not merely uncertainty in its quantification.

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on a company director for contraventions under the foreign-exchange regime warranted enhancement merely because it was below the statutory maximum.

Analysis: The statutory ceiling of up to three times the quantified sum involved prescribes only a maximum penalty and neither fixes a penalty nor mandates its imposition at the maximum level. The adjudicating authority retains discretion to determine the appropriate penalty judicially on the facts and evidence. The impugned order had evaluated the relevant material, and no basis was established to show that its discretion was exercised improperly or that the penalty was disproportionately low.

Conclusion: Enhancement of the penalty was not warranted; the issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issues: (i) Whether the recording of the initial and subsequent transfers of bank shares to non-resident entities, without approval in the names of the actual transferees, contravened foreign-exchange regulations and attracted corporate and vicarious liability; (ii) Whether opening and operating the sale-consideration and shares escrow accounts, and holding shares and title deeds as security for overseas loans, contravened the deposit and guarantee regulations; (iii) Whether the foreign exchange received and retained abroad by the chairman was subject to the restrictions on a person resident in India.

Issue (i): Whether the recording of the initial and subsequent transfers of bank shares to non-resident entities, without approval in the names of the actual transferees, contravened foreign-exchange regulations and attracted corporate and vicarious liability.

Analysis: The Reserve Bank's approval was granted to specified non-resident individuals and institutions, whereas the shares were recorded in the names of separate wholly owned entities. Regulation 4 prohibited recording a transfer to a person resident outside India unless permitted by the Reserve Bank. The later transfers between non-residents could not be validated under Regulation 9 because the original transferees did not hold the shares in accordance with the regulations; the initial transfers were void ab initio. The Board approvals, board notes, and the Reserve Bank's subsequent refusal to acknowledge the relevant holdings established the contraventions. The preliminary objections regarding delay, issuance of the show-cause notice, procedural compliance, and quantification were rejected for want of prejudice and in view of the complexity of the proceedings. Regulations framed under the Act were held to be covered by the vicarious-liability provisions. Directors, officers, and company secretaries who consented to, or negligently facilitated, the resolutions were liable according to their respective statutory roles.

Conclusion: The share-transfer contraventions and the corresponding corporate and vicarious liabilities were upheld against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether opening and operating the sale-consideration and shares escrow accounts, and holding shares and title deeds as security for overseas loans, contravened the deposit and guarantee regulations.

Analysis: The accounts were opened and used as an integrated escrow arrangement for receipt and disbursement of sale consideration and custody of shares, notwithstanding their characterisation as current or safekeeping accounts. Prior Reserve Bank permission was required at the relevant time and had not been obtained. The Indian bank's actions, including requesting registration in the names of unapproved foreign entities, showed an independent and substantive operational role rather than a merely ministerial sub-agency role. The non-disposal undertakings, powers of attorney, physical custody of shares, and custody of title deeds for loans granted to non-resident entities had the effect of securing or guaranteeing those overseas debts. Such arrangements fell within the prohibition on transactions having the effect of giving a guarantee or surety without Reserve Bank permission. The officer responsible for the relevant operational divisions failed to establish lack of knowledge or due diligence.

Conclusion: The deposit-regulation and guarantee-regulation contraventions, including the vicarious liability of the responsible officer, were upheld against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the foreign exchange received and retained abroad by the chairman was subject to the restrictions on a person resident in India.

Analysis: A coordinate appellate order had already determined, by applying the General Clauses Act to exclude the day of arrival, that the chairman had not completed 182 days in India during the relevant preceding financial year. That determination was binding for deciding his residential status on the date of receipt of foreign exchange in Singapore.

Conclusion: The chairman was a person resident outside India at the material time; the alleged contraventions concerning holding, non-repatriation, and foreign-currency account were not established, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The findings of contravention on the share-transfer, escrow-deposit, and security-guarantee issues remain operative, but the foreign-exchange charge against the chairman fails and the penalties imposed on all appellants are substantially reduced.

Issues: Whether confiscation of securities involved in a FEMA contravention is mandatory under Section 13(2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, where the Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalties but declined confiscation.

Analysis: Section 13(2) uses the expressions "may" and "if he thinks fit", making confiscation additional to penalty and subject to the Adjudicating Authority's judicial discretion. The provision prescribes neither a mandatory confiscation consequence nor a fixed or irreducible penalty. The adjudication order had evaluated the material and imposed penalties for the unauthorised share transfers; no failure to apply mind, improper exercise of discretion, or miscarriage of justice was established.

Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 13(2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 is discretionary and was rightly not directed; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeals for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 19 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 should be set aside and the appeals restored subject to deposit.

Analysis: The petitioner's advanced age and critical medical condition, including dementia, were not controverted. The petitioner expressed readiness to deposit the requisite pre-deposit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs, and the respondent raised no objection if the statutory pre-deposit was complied with. The appeals had been closed without consideration on merits solely for non-payment of the pre-deposit. In these circumstances, interference was warranted and restoration of the appeals with a time-bound deposit condition would serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was quashed and set aside, and the appeals were directed to be restored on payment of Rs. 7.5 lakhs within four weeks.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is dismissed only for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit and the appellant demonstrates readiness to comply, the dismissal can be interfered with and the appeal restored subject to deposit.

Issues: Whether the appellant, a director of the company, could be held liable and penalised under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the company's alleged export-related contravention when the record did not establish that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business in relation to finance, export-import or regulatory compliance.

Analysis: Liability under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 arises only where the person sought to be penalised is shown to have been in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time, or where consent, connivance or neglect is proved. The appellant's explanation, statement and reply to the show cause notice showed that his role was confined mainly to technical and administrative work, with finance, banking and export-import being handled by the managing director, and the impugned order did not meaningfully deal with these explanations or record reasons showing how the statutory ingredients were satisfied. Mere designation as director was insufficient to fasten liability absent proof of the required role or active involvement.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be held liable to penalty under Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and the penalty imposed on him was set aside.

Issues: Whether the show-cause notice dated 11.09.2023 and the complaint initiated under Section 16(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, could be sustained when they arose from the same cause of action already under challenge in a pending writ petition concerning proceedings under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and were said to be affected by the subsisting status-quo order.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition had already questioned the legality of proceedings under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and a status-quo order was stated to be operating. The impugned notice and complaint were found to be a continuation of the very same cause of action, only in a fresh form. Since the matter was already sub judice and protected by the existing interim order, continuation of the later proceedings was not permitted.

Conclusion: The impugned show-cause notice and complaint were quashed, and the proceedings could not be continued independently of the pending writ petition.

Issues: Whether delayed remittances for imported services and goods became trade credit or external commercial borrowing and therefore a capital account transaction under FEMA; whether the RBI's permission regularised the delayed payments or condoned the contravention; and whether the individual directors were liable under the deeming provision for the company's contravention.

Issue (i): Whether delayed remittances for imported services and goods became trade credit or external commercial borrowing and therefore a capital account transaction under FEMA.

Analysis: The outstanding dues arose out of admitted current account transactions for services and goods, but the payments remained unpaid far beyond the six-month period recognised in the RBI circulars governing import payments. The Tribunal held that under the extant RBI framework, deferred or delayed import payments beyond the permissible period are treated as external commercial borrowings or trade credit, even if no separate loan agreement or interest clause exists. The distributor agreement did not displace the statutory consequences of the prolonged deferment, and the contractual references to payment intervals and compliance with local law did not prevent the characterisation of the unpaid amounts as credit facilities under FEMA.

Conclusion: The delayed payments were correctly treated as trade credit or external commercial borrowing and the company's contention on this issue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the RBI's permission regularised the delayed payments or condoned the contravention.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the RBI letters permitted remittance from the foreign exchange angle, but those communications expressly stated that they should not be construed as validating irregularities or contraventions under other laws. The record also showed that the delays were not established as having occurred due to genuine financial difficulty or dispute so as to bring the case within the protective part of the relevant RBI instructions. Accordingly, the subsequent permission did not erase the completed breach.

Conclusion: The RBI permission did not condone or wipe out the contravention.

Issue (iii): Whether the individual directors were liable under the deeming provision for the company's contravention.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the directors of an Indian company cannot avoid responsibility merely by asserting foreign nationality or lack of day-to-day control. On the record, they were directors during the relevant period, had signed statutory financial statements, and there was no sufficient material showing due diligence or that the contravention occurred without their knowledge. The Tribunal also held that civil penalty under FEMA does not require proof of mens rea and that the statutory deeming provision attached liability to those responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Conclusion: The individual directors were held liable along with the company.

Final Conclusion: The contravention findings were upheld, but the penalties were substantially reduced, resulting in only a partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Under FEMA and the RBI import-payment framework, prolonged unpaid import dues can acquire the character of trade credit or external commercial borrowing, subsequent RBI permission does not by itself condone an already completed contravention, and civil penalty for such breach does not depend on proof of mens rea.

Issues: (i) whether the contraventions relating to delayed reporting of foreign remittances, delayed allotment of shares and non-filing of FC-GPR under FEMA were established, and (ii) whether the penalties imposed on the company and its directors required reduction.

Issue (i): whether the contraventions relating to delayed reporting of foreign remittances, delayed allotment of shares and non-filing of FC-GPR under FEMA were established.

Analysis: The remittances of foreign direct investment were received in 14 tranches over several years, the first four tranches were not reported within the prescribed time, the shares were allotted much beyond the stipulated period of 180 days, and FC-GPR was not filed in respect of the allotment. The Tribunal also relied on the statements recorded under FEMA to hold that the individual directors were associated with the company affairs relevant to the foreign investment compliance.

Conclusion: The contraventions were established against the company and the directors.

Issue (ii): whether the penalties imposed on the company and its directors required reduction.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the subsequent RBI circular governing delayed filing could not be applied to transactions that predated it. It also accepted that FEMA contraventions are civil in nature and that the absence of mens rea did not by itself bar penalty, but considered the facts and circumstances to make the penalties proportionate.

Conclusion: The penalties were reduced in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalties, while the findings of contravention under FEMA were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In FEMA contraventions concerning delayed reporting and share allotment, penalty may be sustained even without mens rea, but the quantum can be moderated on the facts where the breach is established and the later circular is inapplicable to earlier transactions.

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty under Section 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was sustainable and whether its quantum required reduction; (ii) Whether Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2015 could be invoked against the proprietrix and whether the related penalty was liable to be deleted or reduced; (iii) Whether separate penalties could be sustained against the authorised signatory in addition to the proprietrix for the same contraventions.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty under Section 3(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was sustainable and whether its quantum required reduction?

Analysis: Section 3(b) prohibits making any payment to or for the credit of a person resident outside India. The challenge proceeded on the premise that the provision was attracted only where payment was routed otherwise than through an authorised person, but the statutory text contains no such additional requirement. The remittances were made towards overseas import transactions and the appellant did not dispute that advance payments were made to foreign suppliers. The provision was therefore attracted on the facts, but the record supported interference with the quantum.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 3(b) was upheld in principle, but the amount imposed on the proprietrix was reduced to Rs. 52,00,000, and the separate penalty on the authorised signatory was deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2015 could be invoked against the proprietrix and whether the related penalty was liable to be deleted or reduced?

Analysis: Section 10(6) and Regulation 6(1) apply where foreign exchange acquired for a declared purpose is not used for that purpose and is not surrendered within the stipulated period. Regulation 6(1), by its express language, applies to a person other than an individual resident in India. The proprietorship concern was held to fall within the ambit of an individual for this purpose, and the proprietrix could not be proceeded against under that regulation on the footing adopted in the adjudication order. The penalty could not therefore survive against her.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 10(6) read with Regulation 6(1) was set aside as against the proprietrix, and the corresponding penalty stood deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether separate penalties could be sustained against the authorised signatory in addition to the proprietrix for the same contraventions?

Analysis: The business was conducted by the authorised signatory under a power of attorney from the proprietrix. The legal effect of a power of attorney is that acts done by the holder bind the grantor as acts of the grantor. On that footing, the same contraventions could not justify a separate penalty on the authorised signatory where the proprietrix had already been penalised for the business acts undertaken through him. The separate treatment as a body of individuals was also rejected.

Conclusion: The separate penalties imposed on the authorised signatory on all three counts were deleted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was modified by sustaining only a reduced penalty against the proprietrix on one count and by deleting the remaining penalties, with the appeals disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under FEMA must conform to the exact statutory precondition invoked, and where a power of attorney holder acts for a proprietrix, separate penalty on the holder is not warranted for the same business contraventions already visited on the grantor.

Issues: Whether the penalty order passed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 required interference and remand for fresh adjudication in view of the additional documents, subsequent bank communications, and the material that was not considered earlier.

Analysis: The appeals involved disputed contraventions relating to export realization, import documentation, and export advances under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Additional documents, including later bank communications and supporting material, were placed before the Tribunal and were considered relevant to the disputed factual matrix. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had not had the occasion to examine these materials when passing the impugned order, and that a fresh decision should be taken after considering them along with the parties' submissions.

Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication after giving both sides an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether the appellant could be held vicariously liable under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the company's failure to realise export proceeds, in the absence of any specific allegation or proof of his individual role and in view of his resignation before most of the disputed exports.

Analysis: The notice and the impugned order did not specify the appellant's role in the alleged contraventions, while a substantial part of the exports covered by the show cause notice had taken place after his resignation as director. For the remaining exports, one was still within the prescribed realisation period, and the record did not establish that the appellant was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's business when the contravention occurred. Vicarious liability under FEMA requires strict proof that the person sought to be proceeded against was in control of the relevant business affairs and that the contravention is attributable to that person's consent, connivance, or neglect.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be penalised under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Issues: Whether the show cause notices issued under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by an officer appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 were without jurisdiction for want of valid empowerment.

Analysis: The governing provisions concerning repeal and savings were examined together with the requirement under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 that an adjudicating officer must be specifically empowered by the Central Government. The prior Division Bench view on the very same officer was followed, holding that a deemed or general appointment under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 could not substitute the specific empowerment required to initiate proceedings under the repealed enactment. No distinguishing feature or stay of the earlier decision was shown.

Conclusion: The show cause notices were held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside; the writ petition was allowed.

Issues: Whether the review applications disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier writ order, and whether the petitioners could reopen the merits of the show cause notice notwithstanding the availability of statutory remedies under FEMA.

Analysis: The challenge in review was directed principally against the earlier dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground of alternative remedy. The grounds urged on delay in issuing the show cause notice, the applicability of precedent on reasonable time, the alleged pre-notification nature of the violation, the status of the FDI policy, and factual questions such as exit from the company or the definition of group company were all held to be matters going to the merits, which could be urged before the adjudicating authority. The earlier writ order had already considered the delay issue and had taken the view that reasonableness depended on the facts and circumstances and could be examined in the statutory adjudicatory process. The existence of further remedies under FEMA, including appeal and further appeal on questions of law, reinforced the limited scope of interference in review.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out. The review applications were not maintainable as a vehicle for re-arguing the merits, and they were dismissed.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against an Authorised Dealer Category-I Bank; (ii) whether the petitioner was liable to be non-suited for suppression of material facts; (iii) whether the bank had authority under the FEMA-RBI framework and the facility agreement to scrutinize sanctions-related concerns and refuse processing of the transactions; and (iv) whether the impugned refusal was arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against an Authorised Dealer Category-I Bank.

Analysis: The bank, though private, was acting in the capacity of an Authorised Dealer under the foreign exchange regulatory framework. The challenge was founded on arbitrariness in the exercise of a function having a public law element. Contractual relations did not, by themselves, exclude judicial review where the impugned action was tested on constitutional standards.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was liable to be non-suited for suppression of material facts.

Analysis: A litigant invoking writ jurisdiction must make full disclosure, but every omission or disputed factual assertion does not warrant rejection at the threshold. The alleged Iranian nexus was itself part of the substantive controversy and the materials relied upon by the bank were placed before the Court for scrutiny.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not to be non-suited on that ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the bank had authority under the FEMA-RBI framework and the facility agreement to scrutinize sanctions-related concerns and refuse processing of the transactions.

Analysis: Section 10(5) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 obliges an authorised person to obtain declarations and information sufficient to satisfy itself that the transaction will not involve contravention or evasion of the Act or the directions issued thereunder. The facility agreement also contained continuing sanctions-compliance representations and expressly reserved a right in favour of the bank to refuse processing of transactions that violate or may violate sanctions obligations. On receipt of information raising serious concerns about the accuracy of the petitioner's declarations, the bank was entitled to undertake enhanced scrutiny and decline to proceed.

Conclusion: The bank possessed the requisite authority.

Issue (iv): Whether the impugned refusal was arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226.

Analysis: The bank did not act mechanically. It sought clarifications, afforded opportunity to explain, undertook compliance review, and acted within the contractual and regulatory framework. No material was shown to establish mala fides, collateral purpose, procedural unfairness, or perversity in the decision-making process. The Court did not find it necessary to conclusively determine the underlying factual controversy regarding the origin and routing of the goods.

Conclusion: The impugned refusal did not suffer from arbitrariness, mala fides or procedural impropriety warranting interference.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on merits because the bank's decision was supported by the statutory duties of an authorised dealer and by the express sanctions-related terms of the parties' agreement, leaving no ground for writ interference.

Ratio Decidendi: An authorised dealer bank, when confronted with declarations and subsequent information raising sanctions-related compliance concerns, may lawfully undertake enhanced scrutiny and refuse to process the transaction if the declarations are not satisfactorily reinforced, especially where the underlying contract expressly reserves such a right.

Issues: Whether the respondents satisfied the definition of "person resident in India" under Section 2(v) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and whether the impugned transactions for purchase of immovable property and receipt of funds attracted the FEMA regulations and penalties.

Analysis: The respondents had stayed in India for more than 182 days during the preceding financial year, had entered India on a business visa, carried on business in India, had sought and obtained RBI clarification, and had routed the purchase consideration and inward remittances through banking channels supported by FIRC certificates. On these facts, the statutory exceptions to Section 2(v) were not attracted. The applicable investment, capital account, immovable property, and establishment regulations under FEMA were therefore inapplicable, and no perversity or legal error in the Tribunal's appreciation of evidence was shown.

Conclusion: The respondents were correctly held to be persons resident in India, the violations of FEMA were not established, and the order setting aside confiscation and penalty was rightly upheld. The appeal failed, and the connected writ petition became infructuous.

Issues: (i) Whether the Department's appeal under Section 37A(5) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was maintainable; (ii) whether subscription to shares and subsequent transfer by gift of the foreign company's equity amounted to holding of foreign security in contravention of Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; and (iii) whether the seizure under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 could be maintained only to the extent of value equivalent of the foreign security and not beyond it.

Issue (i): Whether the Department's appeal under Section 37A(5) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 was maintainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 37A had to be read as a whole. The opportunity of hearing under sub-sections (3) and (4) to both sides, coupled with the Supreme Court's direction that the Appellate Authority decide the Department's appeal under Section 37A(5), supported a construction that did not exclude the Department from appellate recourse. A restrictive reading would defeat the purpose of the provision and create an inconsistency within the section.

Conclusion: The Department's appeal was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether subscription to shares and subsequent transfer by gift of the foreign company's equity amounted to holding of foreign security in contravention of Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The record showed that the foreign company had allotted ordinary shares, the shareholders and directors were identified in the financial statements, and the shares were reflected as fully paid in the company accounts. Even if the initial arrangement was described as subscription, it conferred valuable rights and was treated as direct investment outside India under the foreign security regulations. The transfer by gift also demonstrated that the holding had value and was capable of being transferred. The reasoning that the shares had zero value and therefore were outside Section 4 was rejected.

Conclusion: The holding of the foreign security was found to attract Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and the challenge to the seizure was not accepted in full.

Issue (iii): Whether the seizure under Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 could be maintained only to the extent of value equivalent of the foreign security and not beyond it.

Analysis: Section 37A authorises seizure only of value equivalent situated within India of the foreign security held outside India. The objective is to secure the equivalent value and not to permit multiple or excessive seizures for the same underlying foreign security. On the facts, the seizure already made against certain respondents was adequate, but the seizure against the other respondents was not wholly sustainable to the extent it exceeded the permissible equivalent value.

Conclusion: The seizure was upheld for the amount already representing the permissible equivalent value and was set aside to the extent stated by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed only in part, with the Tribunal sustaining the legal basis of the proceedings while modifying the impugned order to preserve seizure only to the extent of the permissible value equivalent and to the extent specifically upheld against the concerned respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 37A of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, subscription rights in a foreign company that confer transferable and valuable interests constitute foreign security, and seizure in India can extend only to the value equivalent of such holding, not beyond that limit.