APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI

1. MP-FE-26/JP/2017 (Exemp.)

FPA-FE-58/JP/2017 Shri Mohd. Rafiq S/o Jamal Din … Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondent

2. MP-FE-38/JP/2017 (Exemp.)

FPA-FE-66/JP/2017 Shri Hukam Chand Soni … Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Gulati, Advocate Mr. Rohit, Advocate Mr. Dalip Lamba, Advocate For the Respondent Sl.No.1 : Mr. Pranav Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent Sl.No.2 : Mr. Varun Mishra, Advocate CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

19.11.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal Nos. FPA-FE-58/JP/2017 filed by Shri Mohd. Rafiq S/o Jamal Din and FPA-FE-66/JP/2017 filed by Shri Hukam Chand Soni, against the Order No. JD (RR)/JPZO/10/ 2017/542 dated 31.03.2017 (Impugned Order) passed by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Jaipur.

Penalties of Rs. 56,25,000/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- were imposed on Shri Mohd. Rafiq and Shri Hukam Chand Soni respectively, for the contravention of Section 3 (b) and Section 3 (c) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) vide the Impugned Order. This Tribunal while disposing of the Applications for the waiver of the pre-deposit of penalty amount vide Order dated 11.07.2024 granted full waiver to the Appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq and vide Order dated 20.03.2024 directed the Appellant Shri Hukam Singh Soni to deposit FDR of the amount Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of the Enforcement Directorate, with the Respondent Directorate.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants contended that the Impugned Order is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The conclusions drawn in the Impugned Order are erroneous. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued after a gap of five years of the first summon issued to the Appellant Shri Hukam Chand Soni. Ld. Counsel alleged that the statements of the Appellants and others were recorded under coercion. The Appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq had immediately retracted through his registered letter dated 08.04.2005 addressed to the Directorate of Enforcement. Ld. Counsel further stated that the Appellant Shri Hukam Chand Soni in his statement dated 03.09.2010 which was recorded after almost five years of the search had clarified that in the recovered documents there was mention of Hukam Ji in Hindi. There are so many Hukam Ji. Ld. Counsel further stated that the phone which was allegedly used by Shri Hukam Chand Soni was in the name of Shri Vijay Shankar Soni. Ld. Counsel contended that the charges against the Appellants were vague. Further in the recovered documents there were names without addresses. In any case the Appellants could not have remembered the names and details of the payments of so many persons as recorded in the statement which clearly shows that the statement was involuntary. The documents and the loose sheets which were recovered had not been written in the hand of the Appellant and were also not signed by him. Moreover, at the address where the Appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq stayed there were many others who lived. He therefore pleaded that the Appeals may be allowed. Ld. Counsel also pleaded that if the Appeals are decided against the Appellants, then the penalty imposed may be reduced, keeping in view the poor economic condition of the Appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq.

3. Ld. Counsels for the Respondents contended that Shri Mohd. Rafiq indulged in international Hawala transactions. These were carried out in association with his family members Shri Anwar, Akhtar and Shri Jamaal Din residing in Saudi Arabia. During the course of search Indian currency amounting to Rs. 13,95,800/- along with note book, diaries, phone book and loose sheets were seized from his residence. An amount of Rs. 11,000/- was seized from a person named Khushi Chauhan, who was found present in the same premises. Ld. Counsels alleged that