2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 13136
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
M/s. Nice Exports Pvt. Ltd. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar – Respondent
FPA-FE-18/JL/2017
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI
1. FPA-FE-18/JL/2017 M/s. Nice Exports Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar … Respondent
2. FPA-FE-19/JL/2017 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta … Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellants : Mr. R S Gill, Advocate Mr. Randhir Singh, Advocate For the Respondent (ED) : Mr. Mohd. Wasay Khan, Adv.
CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER
FINAL ORDER
19.11.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeals Nos. FPA-FE-18/JL/2017 filed by M/s Nice Exports Pvt. Ltd. and FPA-FE-19/JL/2017 filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta against the Order No. JD/JLZO/01/2017 dated 12.01.2017 (Impugned Order), passed by the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Jalandhar, Punjab. Penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- has been imposed on M/s Nice Exports Pvt. Ltd. for contraventions to the extent of Rs. 4,43,96,119/- vide the Impugned Order. Further penalty of Rs. 16,00,000/- has been imposed on Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Director of the Appellant Company for contraventions to the extent of Rs. 4,43,96,119/-. The penalty of Rs.12,00,000/- on M/s Nice Exports Pvt. Ltd. comprises of Rs.6,00,000/- each for the contravention of Section 3 (d) and Section 7 (1) (a) respectively of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). The penalty of Rs. 16,00,000/- on Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta comprises of Rs. 8,00,000/- each for the contravention of Section 3 (d) and Section 7 (1) (a) respectively of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) in terms of Section 42 (1) and Section 42 (2) of FEMA. Further, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed on Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta for contravention of Section 10 (6) of FEMA read with Regulation 6 (A) of Foreign Exchange Management (Realisation, Repatriation and Surrender of Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 to the tune of Rs. 1,70,880/-. Seized Foreign Currency USD 2639, Chinese Yuan 515, Swiss Franc 40 and Singapore Dollar 10, during the course of search at the residence of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta has been confiscated. Total seizure of Rs. 55,50,000/- in Indian Rupees has not been confiscated.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants stated that in the course of search on 01.02.2013 at the premises of M/s Happy Forex Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, seizure of Indian Currency Rs.1,13,50,000/-, Foreign Exchange equivalent to Rs. 17,00,000/-, two computer hard disk, laptop and incriminating documents disclosing receipt and distribution of Hawala funds in India along with amounts transferred abroad as arranged by Jeevan Kumar @ Happy for the exporters based in Punjab, was effected. Further Rs.5,00,000/- was seized along with incriminating documents at the premises of Chauhan Jewellers, Ludhiana of Shri Pratap Rai @ Laddi, an associate of Shri Jeevan Kumar. The name Nice appeared in the documents seized along with the transactions in Indian Currency as well as Foreign Currency. Ld. Counsel further stated that summons under Section 37 of FEMA were issued to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Director of Nice Exports Pvt. Ltd. Further residential and business premises of Nice Export Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta were searched on 15.10.2014. Seizure was effected of Indian currency of Rs. 55,50,000/- and of Foreign Currency equivalent to Rs. 1,70,180/-. Ld. Counsel further stated that Shri Gupta in his statement said that his Company was exporting bicycle parts. He denied having made any payment either to Shri Jeevan Kumar or to Shri Pratap Rai. He explained the recovery of Rs. 55,50,000/- as amount withdrawn from the bank account of his Company with Karnataka Bank Ltd. and from the bank account of Nice Industries, the firm of his wife, Smt. Ritu Gutpa. He explained the recovered Foreign Currency as unspent balance, purchased by him during the year 2014.
3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants contended that that while the alleg