APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-FE-05/DLI/2012 Smt. Surender Kaur Sethi … Appellant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Tushar Randhawa, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Mohd. Wasay Khan, Adv.

CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

08.01.2026 This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-FE-05/DLI/2012 filed by Smt. Surender Kaur Sethi, against the Order No. SDE(SKP)/III/175/2004 dated 05.08.2004 (Impugned Order) passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi. Penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant Smt. Surender Kaur Sethi and her husband Shri Gurcharan Singh Sethi (expired on 19.08.2004) for the contravention of Section 8 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) vide the Impugned Order.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi against the Order dated

02.04.2024 of this Tribunal, whereby the Appellant was directed to tender the original sale deed of property No. J-3/91/1^st Floor Rajouri Garden, Delhi, as security with the Respondent Directorate for non- payment of the penalty amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-, before next date of hearing on 30.05.2024. Accordingly, the Application for waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty amount was disposed of. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, vide Order dated 30.05.2024 in CRL. M.C. No. 4644/2024, extended the date to 15.07.2024 for the compliance. From time to time, the date has been extended. The Hon’ble High Court on 25.09.2025 extended the interim order to continue till the next date of hearing on 27.03.2026. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pleaded that the Appellant has no objection for further continuance of the proceedings before this Tribunal as long as the deposit of the sale deed of the aforementioned property is not insisted upon. Accordingly, the proceedings were pursued by both the sides and the matter was heard finally on

22.12.2025.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the accounts bearing no. 6167 with Punjab National Bank (PNB) and 27262 with Bank of Baroda (BOB) were opened by the Late Husband of the Appellant, Shri Gurcharan Singh. It was the Late Husband who use to make transactions in the said accounts. Even though, the Appellant was a joint account holder, the Appellant had no knowledge about the alleged transactions. Ld. Counsel contended that the Appellant came to know from the office of the Respondent towards the end of 2010 about the proceedings for the recovery of penalty as arrears of land revenue which had been initiated through certificate action by the Respondent. On her Application dated 30.08.2011 under the RTI Act, 2005, she learned that no order of attachment for the immovable property No. J-3/91 (1^st Floor Rajouri Garden, New Delhi), had been issued. However, the recovery certificate from the Respondent for realization of penalty of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been received by the local Revenue Authorities. Ld. Counsel contended that the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2004 was received by the Appellant in first week of December, 2011. He further contended that a copy of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was received on 23.12.2011. Ld. Counsel stated that vide Order dated 03.11.2011 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 7825/2011 and C.M. No. 17695/2011 the recovery proceedings against the petitioner had been stayed.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Ld. AA failed to appreciate that the deposits in the said accounts were made in such a manner that it never exceeded US $ 10,000 or its equivalent in value. He further contended that Shri Late Gurcharan Singh was a trader, based in Kuwait, having a good income and therefore entitled to bring the said money to India. No Foreign Exchange was acquired in violation of the provisions of FE