The Tribunal examined whether lack of notice violated natural justice in attachment proceedings. It held that proper service was proven and the appellant cannot claim denial of hearing after failing to participate.
The issue was whether exporters took reasonable steps to realise overseas payments. The Tribunal held that lack of documentary proof and recovery action justified penalties under FEMA.
The issue involved recall of orders passed after the respondent failed to attend hearings. The Tribunal ruled that continued absence despite ample chances showed negligence, and recall relief could not be granted.
The issue was whether an excessive delay in filing appeals could be condoned. The Tribunal allowed condonation but imposed costs, balancing justice with procedural discipline.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA held that attachment under PMLA cannot stand without evidence showing flow of tainted funds. The key takeaway is that mere suspicion or indirect linkage is insufficient to sustain attachment.
The Tribunal upheld attachment as no documentary evidence was provided to establish the source of funds. It held that unexplained money can be treated as proceeds of crime.
The Tribunal found that the relationship between parties was a commercial arrangement for smooth supply of goods. It held that such arrangements do not amount to benami transactions. commercial dealings must be distinguished from benami arrangements.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant to receipt of proceeds of crime under PMLA. It set aside the attachment, holding that mere suspicion without proof cannot justify action.
The Tribunal confirmed liability of directors under Section 42 based on their role in managing the company. It found no error in holding them responsible. Key takeaway: managerial control establishes accountability.
The Tribunal upheld FERA violations involving unauthorized foreign exchange transfers through hawala channels. However, considering delay and circumstances, it reduced the penalty significantly.
