Nitya Majumdar Vs Joint Director (Appellate Tribunal Under SAFEMA Delhi)
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA partly allowed the appeal of Shri Nitya Majumdar in a long-pending FERA case involving alleged hawala transactions and unauthorized foreign exchange dealings. The case related to a complex scheme where export over-invoicing proceeds were allegedly routed through intermediaries, converted into Bangladesh currency, and ultimately transferred to Singapore without RBI approval.
The Tribunal upheld the finding of contravention under Sections 8(1), 8(2), and 9(1)(b) of FERA, noting that:
- Documentary evidence (telephone index and seized papers) and statements of co-accused established the modus operandi.
- The appellant’s role in converting Indian currency into foreign currency through informal channels was corroborated by multiple statements.
- The appellant failed to produce any evidence to rebut these findings.
The Tribunal rejected arguments based on delay and lack of documents, observing that part of the delay was attributable to the appellant and that proceedings were validly continued.
However, considering the prolonged delay in adjudication (over two decades) and overall circumstances, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from ₹2 lakh to ₹50,000, partly allowing the appeal on quantum while sustaining the violation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-FE-55/KOL/2015 filed by Shri Nitya Majumdar, against the Order No. 04/FERA/2015/JD(HKL) dated 25.03.2015 (Impugned Order), passed by the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Kolkata. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Appellant for the contraventions of Sections 8 (1), 8 (2) and 9 (1) (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), vide the Impugned Order. This Tribunal vide the Order dated 18.02.2019 dispensed completely the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, in view of the penalty having been imposed after 21 years of the initiation of the case vide Memorandum No. T-4/24-C/95(SCN-I) dated 15.09.1995.
