Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
HC affirmed that proceedings under FERA are adjudicatory rather than criminal in nature. While the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, acting as a quasi-judicial body, has authority to impose penalties for FERA violations, it lacks jurisdiction to pronounce parties "guilty" of offenses. Such determinations of guilt remain exclusively within the purview of competent courts. The tribunal's penalty against appellants was upheld, but the term "guilty" in the 02.06.2016 order was deemed redacted, as pronouncements of guilt carry significant legal implications that exceed the tribunal's administrative and adjudicatory scope.
HC affirmed that proceedings under FERA are adjudicatory rather than criminal in nature. While the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, acting as a quasi-judicial body, has authority to impose penalties for FERA violations, it lacks jurisdiction to pronounce parties "guilty" of offenses. Such determinations of guilt remain exclusively within the purview of competent courts. The tribunal's penalty against appellants was upheld, but the term "guilty" in the 02.06.2016 order was deemed redacted, as pronouncements of guilt carry significant legal implications that exceed the tribunal's administrative and adjudicatory scope.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.