The SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal has upheld the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment of property worth Rs 5.46 crore belonging to Hyderabad-based Lucent Drugs Pvt Ltd, citing company records and emails that indicated tramadol consignments were routed to Pakistan through overseas intermediaries without the required regulatory approvals.
Chairperson Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari dismissed Lucent Drugs’ appeal on September 28 and affirmed an adjudicating authority’s July 25, 2025, order confirming the ED’s provisional attachment issued on February 19, 2025. The appeal was filed against the deputy director of the ED’s Hyderabad unit.
The money-laundering case originated from an investigation by the Bengaluru zonal unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau. In a complaint filed before the additional district and sessions judge in Sangareddy on May 13, 2022, the NCB named Lucent Drugs, its senior management and others over alleged unauthorised exports of tramadol to Pakistan.
The complaint also referred to a discrepancy involving 3.85 kg of acetic anhydride, the alleged failure to submit mandatory quarterly returns and the non-maintenance of prescribed records. Based on the NCB investigation, the ED registered a money-laundering case on December 29, 2023.
The original allegations concerned approximately 25,000 kg of tramadol. The tribunal, however, found evidence relating to 18,800 kg being routed to Pakistan. This included 13,800 kg sent through Denmark-based CHR Olesen Pharmaceuticals and 5,000 kg through Malaysia-based SM Biomed, according to the report.
Lucent Drugs argued that its exports were supported by no-objection certificates issued by the Central Bureau of Narcotics for the declared destinations. The company also maintained that exports to Pakistan during 2020 had been authorised and that it could not be held responsible if overseas buyers later diverted the consignments.
The ED disputed that defence by relying on transaction records and email correspondence. The tribunal cited a November 3, 2021, email sent on behalf of the company that stated: “Don’t write PAKISTAN NAME IN PO. Please remove total matter in OTHER COLUMN REMARKS.” Other communications referred to prices agreed with Pakistan-based Inteq and approval of product labels by Alpha in Pakistan.
The tribunal concluded that the emails indicated the company was aware of the shipments’ final destination from the outset. It therefore rejected Lucent Drugs’ argument that the consignments had been diverted only after leaving India.
The company also challenged the valuation of the attached property. It said the property had been purchased for Rs 2.60 crore in February 2021 and was worth Rs 8.50 crore when the attachment was made. Lucent Drugs argued that the property had not been acquired using illicit funds and that its value exceeded the alleged proceeds of crime.
The tribunal rejected that submission, holding that the relevant statutory provision required valuation based on the property’s fair market value at the time of acquisition. Although the ED assessed the property at Rs 6.02 crore, the attachment was restricted to Rs 5,46,58,871.
Finding no reason to interfere with the adjudicating authority’s conclusions, the tribunal dismissed the appeal. The order leaves the attachment in place while the underlying proceedings arising from the NCB and ED investigations continue under the applicable legal process.
