Lucent Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Director (Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi)
Export NOC Cannot Shield Deliberate Diversion to an Unauthorised Destination: PMLA Attachment Upheld
Background of the Dispute
The appeal arose from the attachment of property representing the alleged proceeds of crime of ₹5,46,58,871. The company challenged the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated 25 July 2025, confirming the provisional attachment dated 19 February 2025.
The proceedings originated from an investigation by the Narcotics Control Bureau into alleged violations involving controlled substances and the export of Tramadol. The allegations included stock discrepancies in acetic anhydride, failure to submit prescribed returns and maintain statutory records, and exports ultimately destined for Pakistan through overseas intermediaries.
Following the complaint under the NDPS Act, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR on 29 December 2023. Its investigation relied on statements recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, commercial documents and electronic correspondence.
Company’s Defence: Exports Were Covered by Valid NOCs
The appellant contended that the Central Bureau of Narcotics had issued valid No Objection Certificates for exports to the foreign purchasers and destinations mentioned in its applications.
According to the company, direct exports to Pakistan had earlier been permitted, but no direct export was undertaken after permission ceased. Subsequent exports were made to buyers in countries such as Denmark and Malaysia. If those purchasers independently resold or re-exported the goods to Pakistan, the appellant argued, responsibility could not be attributed to the Indian exporter.
The company also challenged the valuation underlying the attachment. It relied on a sale deed dated 25 February 2021, recording consideration of ₹2.60 crore, and a subsequent valuation report assessing the property at ₹8.50 crore. The Enforcement Directorate had valued the property at ₹6,02,41,000.
Emails Established Knowledge of the Ultimate Destination
The Tribunal acknowledged the existence of export permissions for the declared foreign destinations. However, it held that the documentary material demonstrated planned routing to Pakistan, rather than an independent resale by overseas purchasers.
Correspondence concerning supplies through the Danish intermediary included a Pakistani entity in the communications. Other emails referred to payment security from Pakistan and prices already agreed with a Pakistani purchaser.
Of particular significance was an email dated 3 November 2021, directing that the Pakistan name be removed from the purchase order. Subsequent correspondence referred to awaiting instructions from Pakistan for shipment. Another transaction involved obtaining approval of certificates and labels from a Pakistani entity.
Read together with purchase orders, invoices, shipping records and payment documents, these communications supported the finding that the appellant knew and participated in arranging the ultimate delivery to Pakistan.
Permission for One Destination Did Not Authorise Another
The Tribunal rejected the contention that the appellant’s responsibility necessarily ended upon supplying the named overseas buyer.
The permissions covered the destinations disclosed in the applications. They did not authorise the company to use those destinations as intermediaries for a prearranged supply to Pakistan.
The decisive distinction was between a purchaser’s independent subsequent re-export and an exporter’s knowing participation in an indirect supply arrangement. On the material before it, the Tribunal found the latter situation established for the attachment proceedings.
The detailed computation concerned 18,800 kg of Tramadol: supplies through the Danish intermediary generated ₹4,12,80,374, while supplies through the Malaysian intermediary generated ₹1,33,78,497. The aggregate amount was ₹5,46,58,871.
Property Valuation Must Address the Statutory Date
On valuation, the Tribunal referred to section 2(1)(zb) of the PMLA, which defines value by reference to the property’s fair market value on the date of acquisition, or, where that date cannot be determined, the date on which possession was obtained.
Consequently, the company’s reliance on a present valuation of ₹8.50 crore did not answer the statutory valuation question.
The Tribunal considered the acquisition document and its recorded consideration relevant. It also noted that, although the Enforcement Directorate’s property valuation was ₹6,02,41,000, the attachment was restricted to the alleged proceeds of crime of ₹5,46,58,871. The valuation objection did not persuade it to interfere.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, sustaining the confirmation of attachment. The findings concerned the validity of the attachment proceedings and should not be read as a final criminal conviction.
Author’s Comments
The decision highlights that an export NOC must correspond with the actual intended transaction. Formal compliance through a named overseas buyer may offer little protection where contemporaneous correspondence reveals a coordinated supply to an unauthorised destination.
However, the ruling should not be extended to impose automatic liability whenever a foreign purchaser independently re-exports goods. Knowledge, involvement and the underlying commercial arrangement were central to the Tribunal’s reasoning.
The valuation discussion also carries a practical lesson: a report based on current market value may be insufficient where the statute requires acquisition-date fair market value. Sale consideration is relevant evidence, but it should not invariably be equated with fair market value. A valuation challenge must address the statutory date and methodology directly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA
1. By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Provisional Attachment Order (“PAO”) dated 19.02.2025.
2. The provisional attachment of the property was caused after recording of the ECIR and initiation of the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “the Act of 2002”). The case was otherwise initiated by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Bangalore Zonal Unit. Following search operations and investigations, the NCB filed a final complaint on 13.05.2022 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. The complaint arraigned M/s Lucent Drugs Pvt. Ltd. (“M/s LDPL”) along with its Managing Director, Shri Vinod Jain; Associate Vice-President, Shri Devarasetty Sai Vikas; Logistics and Sales Executive, Shri Gangula Eswara Rao and many others as accused for disappearance of 3.85 Kg. of Acetic Anhydride from the Company’s premises and also for illicit export of approximately 25000 Kg. of Tramadol to Pakistan through overseas intermediaries.
3. The case of the NCB revealed that M/s LDPL has failed to submit quarterly returns to the NCB since the beginning of the year 2020 thereby violated the provisions of the Regulation of Controlled Substances Order, 2013 (“RCS Order”). During the search operation, the NCB officials discovered that M/s LDPL failed to maintain the Form-D Register, as required under RCS order. Additionally, a stock discrepancy of 3.85 Kg. of Acetic Anhydride was found. It was also revealed that after the Central Bureau of Narcotics (“CBN”) denied a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) for export of Tramadol to Pakistan, M/s LDPL and its promoters circumvented the export by rerouting shipments through multiple overseas entities in Denmark, Germany, Malaysia and other countries, resulting in export of Tramadol to Pakistan for which the company was not having NOC. The allegation was made against the company for misrepresentation of the final destination of shipments in its NOC application to CBN. The company fraudulently obtained export authorization showing destination different than the final destination to export Tramadol in collusion with the foreign agents.
4. The serious allegation against the appellant was otherwise made in the Original Complaint for acting in criminal conspiracy and collusion for commission of offences related to psychotropic substances. These offences include the illegal import/ export of the substances in contravention of orders under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “the NDPS Act”) and the forgery of records and documents concerning the export authorizations. This illicit activity led to wrongful financial gains of 25000 to 30000 Kg. of Tramadol @ Rs.2300 per Kg. Tramadol was illegally routed to Pakistan via trusted overseas clients in FY 2021-22. The estimated proceeds of crime for FY 2021-22 was amounting to approximately Rs. 6 Crores.
5. Based on the information and supporting documents, it was, prima facie, found that a money laundering offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002 had occurred since the offences under Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25A, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 invoked in the Final Complaint filed by the NCB are scheduled offences under the Act of 2002. An ECIR was accordingly recorded on 29.12.2023.
6. The respondent have recorded the statements under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Act of 2002 during the course of investigation and even collected the material to make out a prima facie case for commission of predicate offence coupled with the offence under Section 3 of the Act of 2002. The respondent, accordingly caused provisional attachment of the property worth of Rs.5,46,58,871/-. The property was attached for the value thereof and has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by a detailed order. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant:
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisional attachment of the property has been caused in ignorance of the material placed on record. The appellant company made export of Tramadol after taking NOC from the CBN. The document pertaining to NOC for export of Tramadol to various entities outside India was placed on record but has been ignored by the Adjudicating Authority while confirming the PAO. Thus, impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
8. Ld. Counsel further submitted that export of Tramadol to Pakistan was made in the year 2020 under NOC granted to the appellant company but subsequently appellant company did not export the Tramadol to Pakistan and thus no NOC for it was required. The NOC for export of Tramadol was to the destination abroad other than for Pakistan and therefore the allegations made against the appellant for export of Tramadol to the Pakistan is not even made out. Clarifying the position aforesaid, it was submitted that if the importers of Tramadol in Denmark, Germany and Malaysia or any other destinations had exported Tramadol to Pakistan, the appellant company could not have been made responsible as its transaction got completed with the export of the product to the entities in Denmark, Germany, Malaysia etc. that too under the permission of the CBN. Therefore, a case was not made out against the appellant. But ignoring aforesaid, the impugned order has been passed confirming provisional attachment of the property.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that value of the property for causing provisional attachment is in ignorance of the valuation report submitted by the appellant. The property was purchased by the appellant company vide Sale Deed placed on recording showing consideration of Rs. 2,60,00,000/- while executing the deed on 25.02.2021. The value of the said property on the date of the attachment was of Rs.8,50,00,000/- while proceeds of crime determined against the appellant was for Rs.5,46,58,871/-. Thus, the provisional attachment of the property is far excess to the alleged proceeds of crime in the hands of the appellant. In fact, the property was not purchased out of the proceeds of crime. Therefore, even on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.
10. The respondent have otherwise taken value of the property for a sum of Rs.6,02,41,000/-, far below to the value of the property to be of Rs.8,50,00,000/- shown in the valuation report from the authorized valuer.
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other argument than referred to above. It is despite an opportunity to raise any other legal or factual issues than referred to above. Ld. Counsel for the appellant shown his satisfaction to the issues raised for pressing the appeal and thereby he did not raise any other issues than referred above despite an opportunity.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent:
12. Ld. Counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the appeal. Elaborate arguments were made on each issue raised by Ld. Counsel for the appellant which would be referred while recording finding on each issue raised by the appellant to avoid repetition of one and the same facts and for the sake of brevity.
Findings of the Tribunal:
13. I have considered the rival submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records. In the opening paras of the order, I have made reference of the Final Complaint submitted by the NCB to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The reference of the allegations against the appellant company have also been narrated but for the sake of repetition, I am referring brief allegations against the appellant:
(i) The first allegation is regarding export of Tramadol to the Pakistan without permission/NOC from CBN. In fact, the permission/NOC for export of Tramadol to Pakistan was permitted to the appellant till the year 2020. No such permission or NOC was granted for export of Tramadol to Pakistan thereafter. The appellant therefore in collusion with foreign agents exported Tramadol to Pakistan by evolving certain entities abroad in Denmark, Germany, Malaysia and other countries.
(ii) The other allegation was for discrepancy in the stock of Acetic Anhydride for quantity of 3.85 Kg.
(iii) Further allegation was for non-filing of the returns after first quarter of the year 2020 and otherwise inconsistences in issuance of the dates of Acetic Anhydride was found. The record had shown issuance of 375 Kg. as on 26.02.2020 and 375 Kg. on 29.02.2020 whereas the issue register reflects 375 Kg. on 18.02.2020 and 375 Kg. on 25.02.2020.
14. The explanation of the discrepancy in the dates could not be given by the Managing Director, Shri Vinod Jain. In any case, the quantification of the proceeds of crime is in regard to the export of Tramadol to Pakistan through the entities in Denmark, Germany and Malaysia and accordingly finding would be recorded in reference to the allegations aforesaid while dealing with the issue raised by the appellant.
15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference of the NOC granted by the CBN for export of Tramadol to various destinations in the year 2021. The certificate referred by the appellant no doubt shows an NOC by the CBN for export of Tramadol to different destinations abroad which include the entities in Denmark, Germany and Malaysia. However, the NOC has been misused by the appellant company by evolving a modus operandi to use the entities in Denmark, Germany and Malaysia to export Tramadol to Pakistan. It was revealed during the course of investigation finding requisite details of purchase orders, invoice details, shipping details of payment etc. The other documents were in the shape of emails to prove the final destination of export of Tramadol to be Pakistan. A reference of each email has been given in the impugned order and would be relevant to refer hereunder also:
“(i) Page No. 1437-1439 of Volume-2 of RUDs (of complaint dated 13.05.2022 filed by NCB): Email exchanges between M/s LDPL and their overseas client namely M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark for the export of 2200 Kgs. of Tramadol. It is seen throughout the email exchanges during the period-30.03.2021 to 07.04.2021 that both M/s LDPL and M/s CHR Olesen had always marked a copy of their emails to the representatives of M/s Inteq Chemicals a Pakistan based company. It is therefore clearly established that final destination for 2200 Kgs. of Tramadol was Pakistan.
(ii) Page No. 1427-1433 of Volume 2 of RUDs (of complaint dated 13.05.2022 filed by NCB): Email exchanges between M/s LDPL and their overseas client namely M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark regarding Purchase Order no. PHBP001101 for export of Tramadol. It is seen on the Page no. 1433 of the said email exchanges dated 05.05.2021 to 16.06.2021 that Mr. Carsten Machholdt of M/s CHR Olesen has mentioned that – “Naheed is optimize that he will get up to 5 Mt orders from now, but I cannot take such quantity into stock without payment security from Pakistan”. It is therefore clearly established that M/s CHR Olesen was a mere intermediary to facilitate the said export of Tramadol, the final destination of which was Pakistan.
(iii) Page No. 1499 of Volume-2 of RUDS (of complaint dated 13.05.2022 filed by NCB): Email exchanges between M/s LDPL, and their overseas client namely M/s SM Biomed of Malaysia for the export of 05-tonnes of Tramadol. It is seen that Mr. Ramesh Suvardą Financial Controller for SM Biomed sent the following email text dated 01.10.2021 to Mr. Vikas Devarasetty “We would like to place a new order for 05 ton Tramadol. Kindly confirm the price of USD 36/Kg.. you had discussed and agreed with Inteq, Pakistan in order to proceed with the PO. It is therefore clearly established that M/s SM Biomed of Malaysia was acting as an intermediary and the final destination for the said export of 5000-Kg..s of Tramadol was Pakistan.
(iv) Page No. 335359 of Volume 1 of RUDs (of complaint dated 13.05.2022 filed by NCB) Email exchanges between M/s LDPL, and their overseas client namely M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark for the export of Tramadol Vide Purchase Order no. PHP001267. It is seen that Ganugula Eswar Rao on behalf of M/s LDPL sent an email text dated 03.11.2021 to M/s CHR Olesen that reads as “Don’t write PAKISTAN NAME IN PO. Please remove total matter in OTHER COLUMN REMARKS” Also, it is noted that in one of the mails in the trail concerned that Mr. Carsten Machholdt of M/s CHR Olesen has sent an email text dated 26.01.2022 to M/s LDPL which reads as “I am waiting for Pakistan to come with the next call of in order to call off this 6000 Kg.. from you” It is therefore clearly established that the said shipments were meant For Pakistan and M/s CHR Olesen was a mere intermediary for carrying out the re-export of Tramadol. Information gathered from the said Email trail further revealed that a total of 8000 Kg..s of Tramadol was.re-exported to Pakistan vide the said order in the following manner 2000 Kgs vide Purchase Order No. PHP001267-2 dt. 01.11.2021 and 6000 Kgs. Vide Purchase Order No. PHP001267-1 dt. 01.11.2021. The same export of 8000 Kgs of Tramadol to M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark in 02 tranches corroborated with the available details such as Purchase Orders, Invoice details, Shipping Bills, Payment details etc. as gathered from be representatives of M/s LDPL.
(v) Page No. 1399-1403 of Volume 2 of RUDs (of complaint dated 13.05.2022 filed by NCB): Email exchanges between M/s LDPL and M/s CHR Olesen, Denmark for the export of 100 Kg..s of Tramadol vide Purchase Order no. PIP001245. It is seen in the said email trail that Mr. Carsten Machholdt of M/s CHR Olesen had sent various email texts dated 07.12.2021 to 12.01.2002 out of which email dated 07.12.2021 reads as – “Dear Vinod Kindly send me a copy of the COA and a picture of the label, so this can be approved by Alpha in Pakistan”; and email dated 10.12.2021 reads as “But Alpha wants to add (1RS,2RS) as follows: (1RS 2RS)-2-[(Dimenthylamino) methyl]-1-(3-methoxy phenyl) photo Cyclohexanol Nitrate (Tramadol Nitrate) So please request Lucent to add this and go ahead with the shipment”. It is therefore clearly established that the said shipment was meant for M/s Alpha Chemicals of Pakistan and M/s CHR Olesen was an intermediary for carrying out the re-export of 100 Kg..s of Tramadol.”
16. The scrutiny of Final Complaint dated 13.02.2022 filed by NCB revealed that the promoters of the appellant company illegally re-exported 13,800 Kg. of Tramadol for value of Rs.4,12,80,374/- to Pakistan through M/s CHR Olesen Pharmaceuticals, a Denmark based company and 5000 Kg. of Tramadol valued at Rs.1,33,78,497/- to Pakistan through M/s SM Biomed, a Malaysia based company. Therefore, a total quantity of 18,800 Kg. of Tramadol valued at Rs.5,46,58,371/- was found under illegal export to Pakistan.
17. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference of the NOC but it was only for the destination referred in it and not to be used to divert the product for export of the product to Pakistan. Thus, I don’t find any substance in the argument of the appellant that the company had exported the product of Tramadol only to the entities for which NOC was issued by the NCB. The emails collected during the course of investigation would reveal that ultimate destination of the product was Pakistan in the knowledge and at the instance of appellant, hence respondent had rightly taken up the matter for causing provisional attachment of the property finding a case of money laundering in the hands of the appellant company.
18. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant had no intention to export the Tramadol product to Pakistan, in fact, the product was sent to the entities in Denmark, Malaysia, Germany etc. and thereupon if those entities exported the product to Pakistan, then the appellant company cannot be made responsible.
19. The argument aforesaid has been raised in ignorance of the emails and the materials collected during the course of investigation. It was sufficient to show the intention of the appellant company to export Tramadol to Pakistan with the involvement of the entities in Denmark, Malaysia, Germany etc. The emails are sufficient to show intention and route of the product to reach the ultimate destination of Pakistan and therefore in the emails/ letters sent by and to the appellant company a request was made to remove the name of Pakistan from the documents. The facts aforesaid would be borne out from the following:-
(1) Email exchanges between M/s LDPL and their overseas client namely M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark for the export of 2200 Kgs of Tramadol. It is seen throughout the email exchanges during the period-30.03.2021 to 07.04.2021 that both M/s LDPL and M/s CHR Olesen had always marked a copy of their emails to the representatives of M/s Inteq Chemicals a Pakistan based company. It is therefore clearly established that final destination for 2200 Kgs. of Tramadol was Pakistan.
(2) Email exchanges between M/s LDPL and their overseas client namely M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark regarding Purchase Order no. PHBP001101 for export of Tramadol. It is seen on the Page no. 1433 of the said email exchanges dated 05.05.2021 to 16.06.2021 that Mr. Carsten Machholdt of M/s CHR Olesen has mentioned that – “Naheed is optimize that he will get up to 5 Mt orders from now, but I cannot take such quantity into stock without payment security from Pakistan”. It is therefore clearly established that M/s CHR Olesen was a mere intermediary to facilitate the said export of Tramadol, the final destination of which was Pakistan.
(3) Email exchanges between M/s LDPL, and their overseas client namely M/s SM Biomed of Malaysia for the export of 05-tonnes of Tramadol. It is seen that Mr. Ramesh Suvardą Financial Controller for SM Biomed sent the following email text dated 01.10.2021 to Mr. Vikas Devarasetty “We would like to place a new order for 05 ton Tramadol. Kindly confirm the price of USD 36/Kg.. you had discussed and agreed with Inteq, Pakistan in order to proceed with the PO.
(4) Email exchanges between M/s LDPL, and their overseas client namely M/s CHR Olesen of Denmark for the export of Tramadol Vide Purchase Order no. PHP001267. It is seen that Ganugula Eswar Rao on behalf of M/s LDPL sent an email text dated 03.11.2021 to M/s CHR Olesen that reads as “Don’t write PAKISTAN NAME IN PO. Please remove total matter in OTHER COLUMN REMARKS” Also, it is noted that in one of the mails in the trail concerned that Mr. Carsten Machholdt of M/s CHR Olesen has sent an email text dated 26.01.2022 to M/s LDPL which reads as “I am waiting for Pakistan to come with the next call of in order to call off this 6000 Kg.. from you” It is therefore clearly established that the said shipments were meant For Pakistan and M/s CHR Olesen was a mere intermediary for carrying out the re-export of Tramadol.
(5) Email exchanges between M/s LDPL and M/s CHR Olesen, Denmark for the export of 100 Kgs of Tramadol vide Purchase Order no. PIP001245. It is seen in the said email trail that Mr. Carsten Machholdt of M/s CHR Olesen had sent various email texts dated 07.12.2021 to 12.01.2002 out of which email dated 07.12.2021 reads as – “Dear Vinod Kindly send me a copy of the COA and a picture of the label, so this can be approved by Alpha in Pakistan”; and email dated 10.12.2021 reads as “But Alpha wants to add (1RS,2RS) as follows: (1RS 2RS)-2-[(Dimenthylamino) methyl]-1-(3-methoxy phenyl) photo Cyclohexanol Nitrate (Tramadol Nitrate) So please request Lucent to add this and go ahead with the shipment”
20. The aforesaid clearly signifies the intention of the appellant company to export Tramadol to Pakistan without NOC from the NCB. Thus, even second ground is not made out to cause interference in the impugned order.
21. The third issue raised by Ld. Counsel for the appellant is towards the value of the property under provisional attachment. The respondent has taken the value of the property to a sum of Rs.6,02,41,000/-, however, provisional attachment of the property has been restricted to the extent of Rs.5,46,58,871/-
22. Ld. Counsel for the appellant made a reference of the valuation report showing the value of the property to be of a sum of Rs.8,50,00,000/-. The reference of the valuation report has been given in ignorance of the word ‘value’ defined under Section 2(1)(zb) of the Act of 2002. It is quoted hereunder:
2. Definitions.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) – (za) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
(zb) “value” means the fair market value of any property on the date of its acquisition by any person, or if such date cannot be determined, the date on which such property is possessed by such person.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
23. The value of the property is to be fair market value on the date of acquisition of the property and therefore the Sale Deed or any other document for completion of transaction becomes relevant. If the Sale Deed is looked into, the value of the property would go below the amount taken by the respondent as it is referred to be for a sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- only. In any case, the value of the property cannot be assessed based on the valuation report, rather, it has to be in consonance with the definition of “value” given under the Act of 2002 which has been quoted above.
24. Ld. Counsel for the appellant raised the argument in ignorance of the fact that the word ‘value’ has been defined under the Act of 2002 and thereby the meaning of the word ‘value’ cannot be other than what has been defined under the Act of 2002.
25. Taking aforesaid in consideration, if the Sale Deed is looked into, the value of the property is only of a sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- as against the value taken by the respondent for a sum of Rs.6,02,41,000/-. In any case, the provisional attachment has been restricted to the extent of a sum of Rs.5,46,58,871/- thereby I don’t find any force in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the appellant for taking the value of the property based on the valuation report and otherwise the PAO is restricted only to the extent of proceeds of crime. Thus, even the last issue raised by Ld. Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.
26. In the light of the discussions made above, I don’t find any substance in the appeal. It accordingly fails and is dismissed.
