Issues: (i) Whether the acquisition of rights shares contravened the foreign-exchange regulations; (ii) whether non-supply of the adjudicating authority's opinion vitiated the inquiry; (iii) whether the penalty was disproportionate.

Issue (i): Whether the acquisition of rights shares contravened the foreign-exchange regulations.

Analysis: Regulation 6 made a rights issue to a non-resident dependent on the existing shares having been acquired and held in accordance with the regulations. Under the Tribunal's reading of Regulation 3, the record did not show that the initial shares had been acquired in compliance with the requirement of an application for Reserve Bank permission.

Conclusion: The rights-share acquisition contravened the applicable foreign-exchange provisions.

Issue (ii): Whether non-supply of the adjudicating authority's opinion vitiated the inquiry.

Analysis: Rule 4 requires the adjudicating authority to form an opinion before proceeding with an inquiry. The Tribunal applied the requirement to supply recorded reasons when sought following objections, but found no record of objections having been raised upon the initial notice.

Conclusion: Non-supply of the opinion did not vitiate the inquiry.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty was disproportionate.

Analysis: The transactions were conducted through banking channels without suppression. The initial acquisition and the rights issue were separated by several years, and no action had been taken at the time of the initial acquisition.

Conclusion: The penalty was disproportionate and was reduced to Rs. 92,94,250.

Final Conclusion: The contravention remains established, with the monetary liability reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: A rights issue to a non-resident depends on the existing shares having been acquired and held in accordance with the applicable foreign-exchange regulations.

Issues: Whether appeals challenging penalties for contraventions under the repealed FERA are maintainable in the criminal appellate jurisdiction despite the appeal provision under FEMA.

Analysis: The statutory savings under Section 49 of FEMA and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve offences, accrued penal liabilities, penalties and legal proceedings arising under FERA. Section 35 of FEMA supplies the appellate forum but does not alter the penal character of a saved FERA adjudication. The Original Side revenue-appeal procedure applies to civil contraventions under FEMA and not to saved penal proceedings under FERA. Judicial parity further supports consistent criminal-appellate treatment of the identical penal adjudication.

Conclusion: The appeals are maintainable as criminal appeals, and the preliminary objection to maintainability is overruled.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's appeal could be sustained without disclosing the evidence and reasons supporting the finding against the appellant.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the company's explanation for the seized Indian and foreign currency and exonerated it of contraventions. Its separate finding against the appellant merely stated that he had sold foreign currency at a premium, without identifying or discussing the further material relied upon to sustain the penalty. Reasons supporting an adjudicatory decision must be apparent from the order itself and cannot be inferred from the factual narration or material referred to outside its reasoning.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appellant's appeal was unsustainable for want of reasons and required fresh reasoned adjudication.

Issues: Whether writ petitions concerning foreign-exchange adjudication proceedings fall within Group IV governing revenue and tax matters, rather than Group IX governing residuary matters, for roster allocation.

Analysis: Rules 8A and 8B require Article 226 petitions to be assigned a group under the prescribed classification. Group IV includes adjudication proceedings and miscellaneous matters concerning revenue and tax laws. The foreign-exchange regulatory framework, its subject matter, and the cause-list classification treating foreign exchange as a revenue subject supported allocation to Group IV.

Conclusion: Foreign-exchange matters fall under Group IV and not Group IX; the classification issue is decided against the petitioners.

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged recovery of Indian currency established that it represented proceeds of unauthorised foreign-exchange transactions; (ii) Whether loose sheets allegedly recovered during the search were admissible and capable of being relied upon under Section 72 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (iii) Whether the retracted statement and the burden under Section 71 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 established the alleged contraventions.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged recovery of Indian currency established that it represented proceeds of unauthorised foreign-exchange transactions.

Analysis: The seizure proceedings remained unproved because the attesting witnesses were not examined, while the circumstances recorded in the panchnama itself cast serious doubt on the recovery. In any event, bank records showing a substantial prior cash withdrawal and cash-book entries showing available cash furnished a reasonable explanation for possession of the currency.

Conclusion: The alleged currency recovery was not proved to be, and did not establish, proceeds of foreign-exchange transactions.

Issue (ii): Whether loose sheets allegedly recovered during the search were admissible and capable of being relied upon under Section 72 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: Section 72 permits presumptions concerning seized documents only where the document is otherwise admissible in evidence. Loose sheets are not books of account and their entries are inadmissible under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; the statutory presumption under Section 72 could not cure that inadmissibility.

Conclusion: The loose sheets were incapable of supporting the alleged contraventions.

Issue (iii): Whether the retracted statement and the burden under Section 71 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 established the alleged contraventions.

Analysis: A retracted statement may be acted upon only after satisfaction that it was voluntary and where it is supported by corroborative material. No material established the voluntariness of the statement or corroborated it. The burden under Section 71 arises only after the Department first proves an act requiring permission; that foundational fact was not proved.

Conclusion: The retracted statement and the statutory burden provision did not establish any contravention.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary record did not establish unauthorised foreign-exchange dealings or contraventions of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: A contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot be established through an unproved seizure, inadmissible loose sheets, or an uncorroborated retracted statement; statutory presumptions and burden-shifting operate only after foundational facts are proved.

Issues: (i) Whether the absence of a CFSL report and the non-summoning of panch witnesses vitiated reliance on the seized documents? (ii) Whether the evidence established contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 despite retracted statements, health records, non-recovery of foreign currency, and subsequent misplacement of records? (iii) Whether the penalty of Rs. 1 crore was sustainable?

Issue (i): Whether the absence of a CFSL report and the non-summoning of panch witnesses vitiated reliance on the seized documents?

Analysis: The seized documents were recovered under a panchnama bearing the appellant's signature. No specific case of fabrication, forgery, or non-recovery from the appellant was made out. In the absence of a genuine dispute as to the documents' authenticity or recovery, neither forensic verification nor examination of panch witnesses was necessary.

Conclusion: Reliance on the seized documents was valid; the procedural objections fail against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence established contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 despite retracted statements, health records, non-recovery of foreign currency, and subsequent misplacement of records?

Analysis: The medical material did not displace the evidence that the appellant was present at the premises during the search and recording of the statement. Recovery of foreign currency was not a pre-condition for proving the contravention where seized documents disclosed foreign-currency and gold transactions. A retracted statement required corroboration, which was supplied by the seized documents and statements of connected persons. The belated retraction by a witness was treated as an afterthought. Subsequent misplacement of the departmental record did not negate the material on which the adjudicating authority had based its order.

Conclusion: Contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was established against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty of Rs. 1 crore was sustainable?

Analysis: The amount of contravention had not been quantified, and the penalty was excessive having regard to the seized amount, the proved circumstances, and the appellant's health condition. A reduced monetary sanction was considered proportionate.

Conclusion: The penalty is reduced from Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 15 lakhs, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: Liability for the foreign-exchange contravention remains sustained, with the monetary sanction recalibrated to Rs. 15 lakhs.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement cannot by itself establish a foreign-exchange contravention and must be supported by corroborative evidence.

Issues: (i) Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA; (ii) Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions; (iii) Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Issue (i): Whether prior Customs adjudication precluded determination of contraventions under FEMA.

Analysis: Customs proceedings concerned valuation of imported goods and duty assessment under the Customs valuation framework, whereas the foreign-exchange proceedings concerned unlawful dealing in or transfer of foreign exchange. The rejection of transaction-value redetermination based on extrapolation in the Customs proceedings did not bar an independent determination founded on the requirements and evidence applicable under FEMA.

Conclusion: Prior Customs adjudication did not preclude determination of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized electronic records and statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act could establish the FEMA contraventions.

Analysis: Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 required a presumption of truth, unless rebutted, for documents seized under that Act or another law. The electronic records were linked with manufacturer and supplier invoices, packing lists, banking entries and the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The forensic examination recorded intact seals and identified the seized hard disks, pen drive and flash drive. No material established tampering or rebutted the statutory presumption. The standard applicable to the adjudication was preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof.

Conclusion: The seized electronic records and the Section 108 statement were accepted as reliable evidence of the FEMA contraventions. The issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the FEMA contraventions and the individual appellant's liability could extend to projected amounts beyond documented transactions.

Analysis: The documentary data supported foreign-exchange contraventions in relation to 363 import bills involving USD 14,01,850, approximately equivalent to Rs. 7,42,27,152. Allegations founded solely on projections or extrapolation beyond the documented entries lacked corroborative evidence and could not be sustained. The individual appellant was in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business and was consequently liable for the proved contraventions under Section 42(1) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Conclusion: Liability was confined to the documented contraventions and did not extend to projected amounts. The penalties were reduced to Rs. 75,00,000 for the company and Rs. 25,00,000 for the individual appellant. This issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The foreign-exchange determination was sustained only to the extent supported by the seized and corroborated records, while unsupported extrapolated allegations were excluded and the penalties were recalibrated accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: An unrebutted statutory presumption under Section 39 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, supported by corroborative electronic and documentary material, can establish foreign-exchange contraventions on a preponderance of probabilities, but liability cannot be extended to amounts based only on uncorroborated extrapolation.

Issues: (i) Whether mens rea or absence of monetary benefit is relevant to imposing penalty for contraventions of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of FERA; (ii) Whether the reduction of the penalty as disproportionate was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether mens rea or absence of monetary benefit is relevant to imposing penalty for contraventions of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of FERA.

Analysis: Penalty for a contravention under FERA arises from breach of a civil statutory obligation. Once the contravention is established, proof of guilty intention is not required. The absence of personal gain or compensation from the transaction does not displace the statutory liability to penalty.

Conclusion: Mens rea and absence of monetary benefit are irrelevant to liability for penalty for the established FERA contraventions. The issue is decided against the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the reduction of the penalty as disproportionate was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Judicial review of penalty on proportionality grounds is confined to penalties that are grossly excessive, unduly harsh, or so disproportionate as to shock the conscience. Section 50 of FERA permitted a penalty up to five times the value of the contravention. In light of the contravention amount, the original penalty was not of such character, and the Tribunal gave no legally sustainable reasons to treat it as outrageous or irrational.

Conclusion: The reduction of penalty was not legally sustainable. The issue is decided against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's reduced penalty could not stand, and the penalty determined in the adjudication remained operative.

Ratio Decidendi: For civil penalties under FERA, mens rea is not an essential ingredient once statutory contravention is established, and interference with the quantum of penalty is warranted only where it is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience.

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 invalidated the adjudication; and (ii) Whether failure to consider A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 10 dated 05.09.2000 rendered the determination of borrower eligibility unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Rule 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 2000 invalidated the adjudication.

Analysis: Rule 4(3) required the Adjudicating Authority, after considering the reply to the show-cause notice, first to form and record a reasoned opinion on whether an inquiry should be held and, where adverse, to communicate that opinion and reasons sufficiently before the personal hearing. The requirement was applicable from 01.06.2000 and governed the proceedings initiated in 2014. The prescribed preliminary stage was not followed, which affected the validity of the adjudication at its foundation.

Conclusion: The mandatory procedure under Rule 4(3) was not complied with, and the adjudication was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to consider A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 10 dated 05.09.2000 rendered the determination of borrower eligibility unsustainable.

Analysis: A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 10 dated 05.09.2000, which prescribed eligibility for specified legal entities to raise external commercial borrowings under the automatic route, was material to the asserted eligibility. The impugned adjudication relied extensively on the later circular but did not address the earlier circular, nor did the regulatory correspondence relied upon address its effect. Its consideration was necessary for a proper determination of the matter.

Conclusion: The eligibility issue required fresh consideration after taking A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 10 dated 05.09.2000 and all other applicable material into account.

Final Conclusion: The prior adjudication could not be sustained; the matters require determination afresh in accordance with law after affording both sides due opportunity.

Ratio Decidendi: A FEMA adjudication is invalid where the mandatory preliminary procedure under Rule 4(3) is not followed and material regulatory circulars bearing on the alleged contravention are not considered.

Issues: (i) Whether omission of Section 6(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 invalidated the 2018 complaint and show-cause notice; (ii) Whether a charitable trust qualifies as a person under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and whether loans in rupees from non-resident trustees outstanding beyond three years contravened Regulation 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending in Rupees) Regulations, 2000; (iii) Whether the claimed welfare purpose, technical nature of breach, or absence of mens rea precluded civil penalty; and (iv) Whether the penalty amount warranted reduction.

Issue (i): Whether omission of Section 6(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 invalidated the 2018 complaint and show-cause notice.

Analysis: The omission took effect only upon notification of the relevant Finance Act, 2015 provision on 15.10.2019. The complaint and show-cause notice were issued before that date; consequently, the later omission did not affect their validity.

Conclusion: The proceedings were maintainable. This issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a charitable trust qualifies as a person under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and whether loans in rupees from non-resident trustees outstanding beyond three years contravened Regulation 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing and Lending in Rupees) Regulations, 2000.

Analysis: Section 2(u) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 inclusively covers every artificial juridical person not otherwise specified. A trust is distinct from its trustees and falls within that expression. The sums received from non-resident trustees were recorded as borrowings in the accounts of the trust and its institutions. Although the borrowings were on a non-repatriation basis, repayment could have been made by credit to the lenders' permitted non-resident accounts. The loans were not repaid within the three-year period prescribed by Regulation 4, and the later certificate did not negate the contravention.

Conclusion: The trust was a person under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and the borrowings contravened Section 6(3)(e) read with Regulations 3 and 4. This issue is against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the claimed welfare purpose, technical nature of breach, or absence of mens rea precluded civil penalty.

Analysis: Section 13(1) provides a civil-penalty regime without requiring wilfulness, deliberateness, or intention. An established breach of the statutory and regulatory obligation attracts penalty irrespective of welfare purpose, claimed technicality, or absence of mens rea.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not a prerequisite for penalty, and liability for civil penalty remained established. This issue is against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalty amount warranted reduction.

Analysis: While sustaining the contravention and the liability to penalty, the penalty quantum was reduced from Rs. 5,00,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,00,000.

Conclusion: The penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,00,00,000. This issue is in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The foreign-exchange contravention and civil penalty liability remain established, but the monetary penalty is confined to Rs. 1,00,00,000.

Ratio Decidendi: A contravention of a statutory or regulatory obligation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 attracts civil penalty without proof of mens rea where the statute does not prescribe a mental element.

Issues: (i) Maintainability of the writ challenges notwithstanding the statutory seizure-review mechanism; (ii) Applicability of Section 37A to post-commencement payments arising from an earlier NCD arrangement; (iii) Existence of jurisdictional facts under Sections 4 and 37A in the interconnected funding arrangement; (iv) Adequacy of the recorded basis for reason to believe and the use of explanatory charts; (v) Effect of investigative delay and seizure of business premises on the validity and operation of the seizure; (vi) Effect of earlier regulatory communications, compounding and tax decisions on independent FEMA scrutiny; (vii) Legality of an unreasoned overseas-investment NOC refusal based on a pending investigation or subsequent seizure; (viii) Availability of deemed no objection and the propriety of fresh consideration rather than immediate investment permission.

Issue (i): Maintainability of the writ challenges notwithstanding the statutory seizure-review mechanism.

Analysis: The alternative remedy rule is discretionary, not an absolute restriction on jurisdiction under Article 226. Although Section 37A provides scrutiny by the Competent Authority and a subsequent statutory appeal, objections concerning the temporal availability of seizure power and the legality of the decision-making process fall within the jurisdictional exceptions to that rule. Examination of those objections is distinct from determining the sufficiency of evidence establishing a substantive FEMA contravention. The NOC challenge concerns natural justice and an unreasoned administrative decision, against which the Overseas Investment Rules provide no appellate remedy.

Conclusion: Both writ challenges are maintainable. Review of the seizure is confined to statutory jurisdiction and legality of the decision-making process, without substituting statutory adjudication of the alleged contravention.

Issue (ii): Applicability of Section 37A to post-commencement payments arising from an earlier NCD arrangement.

Analysis: Section 37A, effective from 09.09.2015, cannot operate retrospectively against transactions wholly completed before its commencement. Mere continued existence of a non-convertible debenture liability does not convert the original issuance into a continuing contravention. Actual principal and interest payments made between 2018 and 2023, however, are subsequent acts rather than merely continuing consequences. Those acts may be examined under the law then in force, while the earlier transactions remain relevant as factual background to the alleged arrangement.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 37A is not invalid merely because the funding arrangement originated before its commencement. Post-commencement payments may be considered when determining whether its statutory conditions are satisfied.

Issue (iii): Existence of jurisdictional facts under Sections 4 and 37A in the interconnected funding arrangement.

Analysis: A substance-over-form assessment permits connected transactions to be examined together rather than as isolated borrowings, securities subscriptions and share acquisitions. The closely timed fund movements, immediate onward transfer of the NCD proceeds, return of funds to the original foreign lender, substantial liability retained by the Indian entity, subsequent amalgamation and later repayments supplied a factual foundation for statutory scrutiny. Neither rupee denomination nor the specific regulation of rupee borrowing under Section 6(3)(e) necessarily excludes examination of the larger arrangement under Section 4. An allegation of round-tripping cannot be excluded solely because the funds originated abroad rather than first leaving India.

Conclusion: The recorded transactions disclose the jurisdictional facts necessary to invoke Section 37A and examine the arrangement under Section 4. No final determination of the substantive FEMA contravention is made.

Issue (iv): Adequacy of the recorded basis for reason to believe and the use of explanatory charts.

Analysis: Section 37A(1) requires a contemporaneously recorded factual basis for reason to believe, although the initial satisfaction remains preliminary and subject to independent statutory scrutiny. The seizure order already described the alleged circular movement, return of funds, connected entities and closed-loop arrangement. Explanatory charts introduced no new transaction, fact or allegation. The prohibition against supplementation of reasons prevents a new foundation from being supplied after the decision; it does not prohibit clearer presentation of grounds already recorded.

Conclusion: The seizure order contains a sufficient recorded factual basis for the preliminary reason to believe. The explanatory charts do not constitute impermissible supplementation of reasons.

Issue (v): Effect of investigative delay and seizure of business premises on the validity and operation of the seizure.

Analysis: Statutory power must be exercised within a reasonable time even where no limitation period is prescribed. The substantial lapse of time was assessed against the complexity of the cross-border investigation and repayments continuing during the investigation. Delay alone did not establish jurisdictional invalidity. Nor was material produced establishing that the seized property's value was disproportionate to the alleged contravention. The age of the transactions, cooperation and absence of demonstrated asset dissipation remain relevant to continuation of the seizure. Section 37A secures property against inconsistent dealings; it does not itself prohibit ordinary lawful business use.

Conclusion: Neither delay nor selection of the head-office premises invalidates the seizure at the threshold. Lawful business operations may continue from the premises without alienation, encumbrance, third-party rights or other dealings inconsistent with the seizure.

Issue (vi): Effect of earlier regulatory communications, compounding and tax decisions on independent FEMA scrutiny.

Analysis: Regulatory acceptance must be assessed by identifying the question actually considered. The RBI correspondence and SEBI guidance addressed particular requirements of the NCD instrument, not the complete funding circuit and its alleged consequences under Section 4. Compounding concerned delayed reporting and did not approve the entire arrangement. The tax decisions addressed assessment and liability of foreign entities under a different statutory framework, rather than determining the Indian company's FEMA position. Regulatory consistency therefore did not preclude examination of an issue not previously decided. Nevertheless, those communications and judicial findings remain relevant material requiring fair consideration.

Conclusion: The earlier regulatory, compounding and tax proceedings do not invalidate or foreclose independent FEMA scrutiny. Their findings and the petitioner's explanations must be considered in the statutory proceedings.

Issue (vii): Legality of an unreasoned overseas-investment NOC refusal based on a pending investigation or subsequent seizure.

Analysis: Rule 10 contemplates investment applications by persons already under investigation; pendency alone therefore cannot justify refusal. A rejection requires relevant, rational and communicated grounds connecting the proposed investment with the investigation. Investigative confidentiality may justify withholding sensitive particulars, but not withholding the substance of the grounds. The rejection communication disclosed no basis for refusal. Although the proposed overseas treasury activities warranted examination, explanations advanced during litigation and a later seizure order could not retrospectively cure that defect.

Conclusion: The unreasoned NOC rejection is legally unsustainable. Mere investigative pendency is insufficient, and the subsequent seizure order cannot validate the earlier refusal.

Issue (viii): Availability of deemed no objection and the propriety of fresh consideration rather than immediate investment permission.

Analysis: The rejection was communicated within Rule 10's sixty-day period. Its inadequacy for want of reasons does not convert a timely response into non-response for the deemed-approval mechanism. Defending the rejection did not establish that the authority had closed its mind to reconsideration. Fresh consideration was appropriate because the proposed investment's possible connection with the investigation was not wholly without substance. The petitioner may furnish complete material within ten days, followed by a fresh reasoned decision within ten days of its submission. Relevant subsequent material may then be considered. Regulatory extension must be considered independently and does not dispense with required approvals.

Conclusion: No deemed NOC arises. The application requires fresh, time-bound and independent consideration; immediate investment permission is not granted.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary seizure remains subject to statutory scrutiny without preventing lawful use of the business premises. The investment request requires a fresh, reasoned determination before any remittance. Ultimate FEMA liability, continuation of the seizure and substantive entitlement to invest remain undetermined.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory decision must stand on its contemporaneously recorded grounds. Later explanations may clarify existing grounds but cannot supply a new factual foundation or cure an unreasoned decision.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA applied to the 2006-2008 contraventions despite its later omission; (ii) Whether the foreign remittances and delayed or mismatched share allotments contravened the applicable FEMA Regulations and attracted civil penalties without proof of mens rea; (iii) Whether confiscation of the Barakhamba Road property under Section 13(2) of FEMA was warranted; (iv) Whether the individual directors were liable and whether the penalties imposed on the appellants required modification.

Issue (i): Whether Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA applied to the 2006-2008 contraventions despite its later omission.

Analysis: Section 6(3) was omitted through the Finance Act, 2015 only with effect from 15.10.2019. As the relevant foreign remittances and alleged breaches occurred between 2006 and 2008, the provision was operative when the contraventions arose.

Conclusion: Section 6(3)(b) of FEMA governed the relevant contraventions notwithstanding its subsequent omission, against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the foreign remittances and delayed or mismatched share allotments contravened the applicable FEMA Regulations and attracted civil penalties without proof of mens rea.

Analysis: The foreign remittances were investment funds, yet the prescribed reports of receipt and share allotment were not furnished within the stipulated periods. Shares were also allotted to an entity other than the remitter, and the funds were deployed for acquisition of immovable property in a restricted real-estate sector. These acts breached Paragraphs 2, 8, 9(1)(A), and 9(1)(B) of Schedule I to Regulation 5(1) and the RBI Master Circular. Penalty under Section 13(1) is civil regulatory liability; its text does not require willful conduct, intention, or mens rea. Administrative difficulty, eventual regularisation, and absence of loss did not displace the established contraventions.

Conclusion: The corporate appellant committed the established FEMA contraventions and incurred civil penalty without any requirement to prove mens rea, against the corporate appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation of the Barakhamba Road property under Section 13(2) of FEMA was warranted.

Analysis: Section 13(2) authorises discretionary confiscation in addition to monetary penalty and requires that discretion to be exercised judiciously on the facts. A substantial part of the foreign remittances was used to acquire the property, while the remittance-and-share transaction and investment in the restricted sector were themselves non-compliant.

Conclusion: Discretionary confiscation of the property was justified, against the corporate appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether the individual directors were liable and whether the penalties imposed on the appellants required modification.

Analysis: No evidence established that the non-managing director was in charge of, or responsible for, the company's business when the contraventions occurred. Conversely, the managing director admitted a managerial role, disclosed the initial incorrect declarations concerning remittances, and did not establish that the contraventions occurred without his knowledge or despite due diligence. The monetary sanctions required reduction in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the non-managing director was set aside in her favour. The managing director remained personally liable, but his penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000; the corporate appellant's penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,00,000.

Final Conclusion: Civil FEMA liability of the corporate appellant and the managing director remains, with reduced monetary sanctions and confiscation of the property, whereas the director not shown to be responsible for the company's affairs bears no personal penal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A breach of a civil statutory obligation under Section 13(1) of FEMA attracts penalty once the contravention is established, without proof of mens rea unless the statute expressly makes guilty intention an ingredient.

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte adjudication suffered from denial of notice and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether a director remained liable for non-realisation of export proceeds despite the company subsequently entering liquidation; (iii) Whether the penalty imposed required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte adjudication suffered from denial of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The appellant had acknowledged the investigation directive and sought time to respond, but furnished no reply. Notices and hearing communications were sent to the available addresses, attempts at personal service and affixture were made, and the appellant did not notify any changed address despite awareness of the investigation. The failure to participate after such awareness and service attempts could not be invoked as denial of a fair hearing.

Conclusion: The plea of violation of principles of natural justice was rejected, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a director remained liable for non-realisation of export proceeds despite the company subsequently entering liquidation.

Analysis: The export proceeds remained unrealised and the appellant did not dispute that fact. During the period of contravention, he was a director in charge of the company's affairs. The statutory presumption that reasonable steps to recover export proceeds had not been taken was unrebutted. Subsequent liquidation neither displaced liability arising during the relevant period nor established that the appellant was unable to seek the company records from the Official Liquidator.

Conclusion: The appellant's liability for contravention was sustained, against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty imposed required reduction.

Analysis: Although the penalty was substantially below the statutory maximum and proportionate to the magnitude of the contravention, the relevant period, delay in adjudication, and the company's liquidation warranted confining the penalty to the amount already deposited.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to Rs. 30,00,000, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The contravention and personal liability were maintained, while monetary relief was granted by limiting the penalty to the pre-deposit amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A director responsible for a company during the period of export-default remains liable where the statutory presumption of failure to take reasonable recovery steps is unrebutted, and cannot claim denial of hearing after having knowledge of the investigation and failing to respond to reasonable service efforts.

Issues: Whether the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 imposed for non-realisation of export proceeds could be sustained under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 prescribes only the maximum permissible penalty and requires the adjudicating authority to exercise its discretion reasonably, judicially, and with reasons demonstrating proportionality to the contravention. The Tribunal retained the original penalty despite excluding two guaranteed remittance forms already adjudicated and noting the RBI write-off of another form, without providing a reasoned basis for retaining the same quantum. The remaining contravention involved US$ 44,796.50, while an earlier adjudication concerning US$ 17,460 had attracted a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.

Conclusion: The penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 was set aside as unreasoned and disproportionate, and was substituted with a penalty of Rs. 3,00,000.

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory preconditions for seizure of equivalent domestic assets under Section 37A(1) on suspicion of contravention of Section 4 were satisfied; (ii) Whether Section 37A could be invoked in respect of foreign-exchange profits arising from transactions undertaken before its commencement; (iii) Whether the deceased and the estate could be treated as persons resident in India for the alleged contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory preconditions for seizure of equivalent domestic assets under Section 37A(1) on suspicion of contravention of Section 4 were satisfied.

Analysis: Information emerging from the Panama Papers investigation and the Singapore proceedings disclosed that five BVI entities, in which the deceased had predominant ownership and control, generated substantial profits through resale of iron ore sourced from India. The Singapore decree recognised the estate's acquisition of the relevant shares and profits, and the foreign exchange continued to be held abroad. These materials provided a prima facie basis to suspect a contravention of Section 4 and to record reasons to believe for seizure under Section 37A(1). A pending appeal against the Singapore decree did not negate the acquisition or ownership recorded by that decree. Section 37A(4) also characterises the seizure as a temporary protective measure pending adjudication.

Conclusion: The requirements for seizure under Section 37A(1) were satisfied; the issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 37A could be invoked in respect of foreign-exchange profits arising from transactions undertaken before its commencement.

Analysis: Although the trading activities occurred between 2004 and 2012, the foreign exchange and assets were found to have remained held abroad when Section 37A came into force and continued to be held after the Singapore decree in 2023. The relevant conduct under Section 4 is the continuing acquisition, holding, ownership, possession or transfer of foreign exchange or foreign assets outside India. Application of Section 37A to an existing and continuing holding after its commencement is prospective and does not amount to retrospective operation.

Conclusion: Section 37A was validly invoked for the continuing suspected contravention; the issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the deceased and the estate could be treated as persons resident in India for the alleged contravention.

Analysis: Employment permits issued abroad, without evidence of the deceased's yearly stay in India or of departure with an intention to remain abroad for an uncertain period, did not displace the statutory test of residence under Section 2(v). The administratrix acted for the estate, whose status was material, and the administratrix's individual residential status was irrelevant. The estate could not be treated as a person resident outside India on the material available.

Conclusion: The deceased was not established to be a person resident outside India, and the estate could not claim that status; the issue is decided in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of seizure of the estate's domestic shares as equivalent assets was legally sustained pending FEMA adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure mechanism operating upon a continuing post-enactment holding of suspected foreign exchange or foreign assets is prospective, and may be invoked on recorded reasons to believe of a contravention of the prohibition on such holding by a person resident in India.

Issues: Whether the qualifying conditions in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Regulation 27(1)(c) apply also to a borrower and subsidiary of a credit rating agency's promoter under Regulation 27(1)(a) and (b).

Analysis: Regulation 27(1) was ambiguous regarding the applicability of the qualifying conditions to borrowers and subsidiaries of the promoter. A harmonious construction, having regard to the common purpose of preventing conflict of interest, the contemporaneous regulatory press release, the parliamentary report, and the analogous formulation in Regulation 28V, supported applying the conditions uniformly to borrowers, subsidiaries and associates of the promoter.

Conclusion: The conditions in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Regulation 27(1)(c) apply to Regulation 27(1)(a) and (b) as well; the issue was answered in the affirmative.

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.