APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI FPA-FE-02/BNG/2017 M/s Amisha International … Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bangalore … Respondent Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared For the Appellant : Mr. Anuj Chauhan, Advocate Mr. Sunil Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Girish Tripathi, Advocate CORAM SHRI BALESH KUMAR : MEMBER SHRI RAJESH MALHOTRA : MEMBER

FINAL ORDER

29.10.2025 This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-FE-02/BNG/2017 filed by M/s Amisha International against the Order dated 28.09.2016 (Impugned Order), passed by the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Bangalore. Penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant vide the Impugned Order for the contravention of Section 3 (b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and further penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant vide the Impugned Order for the contravention of Section 3 (d) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA). This Tribunal vide Order dated 20.11.2017 has on the grounds of economic condition and poor health of Shri D K Jain, the representative of the Appellant, completely waived off the pre-deposit of the penalty amounts.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 06.02.2015 alleged contraventions of Sections 3 (b) and 3 (d) of FEMA, to the extent of Rs. 3,20,09,401/- for each of the contravention. Ld. Counsel contended that the Impugned Order is bad in law since it is not a speaking Order. Ld. Counsel further contended that the Adjudicating Authority (AA) considered the corrigendum dated 14.01.2016 issued by the Complainant for correction of typographical errors, and hence should have issued corrigendum to the SCN as well. Ld. Counsel stated that the AA has relied upon the statements made before the DRI Authorities citing the provisions of Section 39 of FEMA. Ld. Counsel argued that the AA could not have relied upon such documents as these did not show any proof regarding payments made in contravention of FEMA. Further the case made under the Customs Act was under Appeal, when the matter under FEMA was adjudicated. Ld. Counsel also stated that the seizure of the consignment exported by Shipping Bill No. 01073 dated 23.01.2003 of value Rs. 88,46,209/- could not have been taken into consideration in the Impugned Order, since the export did not materialise. Ld. Counsel also challenged the charge under Section 3 (d) of FEMA since it requires ‘asset’ out side India to be acquired/created/ transferred for a consideration in India. However, allegedly it was only money which was acquired, which is not an asset. Ld. Counsel contended that the contraventions of the Customs Act have been wrongly treated as contravention under FEMA. He further stated that the identity of the person has not been mentioned to whom the payment was made in India for contravention of Section 3 (b) of FEMA.

He therefore prayed to allow the Appeal.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated that the case was made out by the Respondent Directorate on the basis of the information received from the DRI that M/s Amisha International, 100% EOU (Export Oriented Unit) had indulged in fraudulently diverting the imported duty- free silk yarn to the domestic market and in exporting bricks and silk waste in place of the declared product ‘powder grade silk yarn’. The DRI had intercepted one container covered by the Shipping Bill No. 01073 dated 23.01.2003, which had already reached Cochin Port and was destined for M/s Seven Star General Trading Co., Ajman, UAE. The container was found to have bricks wrapped in tangled textile yarn waste. Shri D K Jain in his statements dated 29.01.2003 and 30.01.2003 admitted having shipped four consignments of bricks and silk waste. Ld. Counsel further informed that the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vide Order No. 17/2005 dated 30.08.2005/04.05.2006 has imposed penalties, under the Customs Act, 1962.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respo