Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 160
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
BALESH KUMAR, Member, RAJESH MALHOTRA, Member
Shri Nitya Majumdar – Appellant
Versus
The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata – Respondent
Appeal No. FPA-FE-55/KOL/2015
Ms. Kshitij Singh, Advocate, Mr. Pralabh Bhargav, Advocate
Mr. Girish Tripathi, Advocate
Significant delays in adjudication can mitigate penalties under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, establishing a need for fair procedural opportunities in enforcement actions.
Headnote:(A) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 8 (1), 8 (2), and 9 (1)(b) - Contravention of provisions - Appellant fined Rs. 2,00,000/- for unauthorized currency transactions and fund transfers to Singapore - The penalty was reduced to Rs. 50,000/- based on delays in adjudication. (Paras 1, 10, 14)
(B) Procedure and Fair Trial - Adequate opportunity must be afforded for defense and fair adjudication; failure to provide necessary documents hampers the ability to contest allegations effectively. (Paras 3, 10)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant was implicated in unauthorized currency transfers after a search in 1994, resulting in the imposition of penalties 21 years later. No direct evidence linked the Appellant to the violations.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal recognized significant delays in the adjudication process justified a reduced penalty.
Issues: Whether the delays justify penalty reduction and if the Appellant had the right to contest the accusations meaningfully.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the substantial delay contributed to the decision to mitigate the penalty while affirming the wrongful conduct under the FERA.
Result: Appeal partly allowed with penalty reduced to Rs. 50,000/-.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant's arguments and concerns. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis and findings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. reduction of penalty based on circumstances. (Para 14) |
| 5. final conclusion and order. (Para 15) |
FINAL ORDER
12.03.2026
This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-FE-55/KOL/2015 filed by Shri Nitya Majumdar, against the Order No. 04/ FERA /2015/JD(HKL) dated 25.03.2015 (Impugned Order), passed by the Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Kolkata. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) imposed the penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Appellant for the contraventions of Sections 8 (1), 8 (2) and 9 (1) (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( ), vide the Impugned Order. This Tribunal vide the Order dated 18.02.2019 dispensed completely the pre-deposit of the penalty amount, in view of the penalty having been imposed after 21 years of the initiation of the case vide Memorandum No. T-4/24-C/95(SCN-I) dated 15.09.1995.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellant Shri Nitya Majumdar is the son of Late Shri Anil Majumdar residing at HA-267, Salt Lake, Kolkata is a citizen of India. The Appellant came to India in the year 1965 from Bangladesh. In 1971, when Bangladesh became independent, the Appellant went back to Bangladesh but with the deteriorated situation in Bangladesh, the Appellant came back to India in 1982 and was staying in a rented premises. Thereafter, he started transport business and out of the profit of such transport business, the Appellant had purchased a land in Jangra in his name. Thereafter in 1992, he started living after completion of the premises in Plot No. HA 224. The Appellant planned to start a business under the name and style of "Majumdar Traders at Burrabazar, 52/A, Eastern Road, Kolkata". But commencement of business from the said premises did not materialize and the business was running from the house of the Appellant at Salt Lake. The Appellant was having two employees. One of the employees was Shri Deepak Debnath. Only on the basis of apprehension, Shri Debnath was also arrested and some documents were also recovered from his Scooter and thereafter, search was conducted in the premises of M/s. Tea Packs Speciality and M/s. Anup India Ltd., as well as at the residence of one Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Shri Anup Kumar Agarwal, which resulted in the seizure of two items of documents viz. Telephone Index and some loose papers consisting of export documents. The statements of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal and Shri Anup Kumar Agarwal were recorded on 04.10.1994 and subsequently on different occasions, their statements were recorded. Smt. Madhu Agarwal, W/o Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal was the partner of the said firm viz. M/s. Tea Packs Speciality. Shri Lalit Dhanuka, brother of Smt. Madhu Agarwal was also the partner of the said firm. Their statements were also recorded by the Officers of the Department on 10.11.1994 and 31.10.1994. No statement was recorded from the Appellant. From the statements, the Officers of the Department were of the view that the abovementioned persons are involved in the receiving and making of payments and also dealing of foreign exchange. Apart from the statements, there is nothing on record to show the involvement of the aforesaid persons in any manner in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 . This is apart from the question of voluntariness of the statement. The Appellant was issued with a Show Cause Notice (SCN) bearing No. T-4/24-C/95(SCN-1) dated 15.09.1995. By the said SCN, the Appellant had been directed to show as to why the proceeding under Section 50 of the should not be initiated against the Appellant for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 9 (1) (b), Sections 8 (1) and 8 (2) of the for receiving payment totaling to Rs. 2.50 crores by order or on behalf of the person resident outside India without any ge
