APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-FE-656/CHD/2020 (Exemp.)

FPA-FE-12/CHD/2020 Shri Gagandeep Singh … Appellant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh … Respondent

2. MP-FE-658/CHD/2020 (Exemp.)

FPA-FE-13/CHD/2020 Shri Paramdeep Singh … Appellant Versus The Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Dr. Ashutosh, Advocate Mr. Darshan Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pranav Mishra, Advocate CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

18.12.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal Nos. FPA-FE-12/CHD/2020 filed by Shri Gagandeep Singh and FPA-FE-13/CHD/2020 filed by Shri Paramdeep Singh, against the Order No. ADJ/CHD/02/2019/SDE(SS) dated 21.11.2019 (Impugned Order) passed by the Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Chandigarh. Penalty of Rs. 15,36,00,000/- was imposed on each Appellant Shri Gagandeep Singh and Shri Paramdeep Singh, for the contravention of Sections 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (d) and Section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) vide the Impugned Order. The seized Indian Currency of Rs.15,00,000/- was confiscated under Section 13 (2) of FEMA. This Tribunal vide Order dated 12.11.2024 disposed of the Applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty amount with direction to pay Rs.10,00,000/- each by the two Appellants as pre-deposit with the Respondent Directorate within six weeks of the Order. The Order reportedly has since been complied.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants challenged the Impugned Order on the ground that it violates the principles of natural justice, since the Appellants were neither provided important relied upon documents nor granted any effective personal hearings. Ld. Counsel stated that the present case under FEMA had arisen from the case made out by the State Police under the NDPS Act. However, the case under FEMA continued even when the Appellants herein were exonerated by the Ld. Trial Court under the NDPS Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that summons which were received were duly responded as and when received. Ld. Counsel contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled in CBI vs. V C Shukla & Ors. [(1998) SCC OnLine SC 790] that contents of loose sheets cannot be relied upon to make allegations of Hawala Transactions. Ld. Counsel further contended that the statements of different persons recorded under Section 37 of FEMA do not hold sanctity, because the statements are hearsay and have not been subjected to cross examination. Ld. Counsel stated that these statements do not name the Appellants. Ld. Counsel also stated that the allegations are vague since the dates, the amounts and the persons have not been specified. He also contended that the Appellants are the authorized person to transact foreign exchange deals under the name and style of the Firm M/s Raja & Co. Ld. Counsel also stated that heavy penalty has been imposed for each of the contraventions of various Sections viz 3 (a), 3 (b), 3 (d) and 4 of FEMA.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the Appellants have neither co-operated in the investigations nor in the adjudication proceedings. He stated that both the Appellants failed to respond either to the summons, Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the call notices for personal hearings. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent further stated that the persons who were summoned were so done on the basis of the documents recovered during the search proceedings of the residential and business premises of the Appellants. In these statements the persons have accepted having received money from unknown persons in lieu of money transfers from relatives abroad. Ld. Counsel drew attention to the Impugned Order wherein list of 14 dates have been delineated to bring out how the two Appellants and their father did not appear to tender statements under the provisions of FEMA. Ld. Counsel also