1 FEMA 3.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION FEMA APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2011 Arya Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant. V/s. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. P.K. Shetty for the Appellant. Mr. A.S. Rao for the Respondents. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 8 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. :- The Appeal is directed against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange on 9 August 2010. The Tribunal dismissed an Appeal filed by the Appellant in proceedings against an order of adjudication passed by the Special Director in the Enforcement Directorate imposing a penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.1.00 lakh respectively in respect of show cause notices No.12 and 13 upon the Appellant. 2 FEMA 3.11.sxw 2. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was a breach of the provisions of Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Besides the statements that were made during the course of the investigation, which were retracted, the Tribunal has duly considered the documentary material including the Account Books marked as “K” and “L” which indicated payments and receipts on behalf of persons residing outside India. The Tribunal has considered the Judgments of the Supreme Court and held that the mere fact that the statement made under the FERA Act, 1973 has been retracted is no ground to discard the statement and it was for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat or coercion to substantiate these allegations. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to indicate that the statements had been induced under threat or coercion. Besides they were found to have been duly corroborated by the entries contained in the seized Books of Account. 3. Though there was a delay in the adjudication process, the Tribunal, in our view has correctly come to the conclusion that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not 3 FEMA 3.11.sxw provide for any specific period for completing the adjudication. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that no prejudice was demonstrated to have been caused to the Appellant. The findings of fact are borne out from the evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises in the Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)