9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of section 10(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 2. Contravention of section 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 3. Contravention of section 30(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 4. Contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. 5. Contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Contravention of section 10(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 The respondent was charged with refraining from taking action to secure receipt of foreign exchange earned between 1967 and December 31, 1973, thereby contravening section 10(1)(b) of the 1947 Act. The Special Director of Enforcement found the respondent guilty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,60,000. However, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board exonerated the respondent of this charge, leading to the appeal by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate. Issue 2: Contravention of section 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 The respondent was also charged with causing delay in the repatriation of foreign exchange earned between January 1, 1974, and May 31, 1975, violating section 16(1)(a) of the 1973 Act. The Special Director of Enforcement imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The Appellate Board exonerated the respondent on this charge as well, which was contested in the current appeal. Issue 3: Contravention of section 30(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 The respondent was accused of carrying on an occupation in India as an Architectural Engineer without the previous permission of the Reserve Bank of India, violating section 30(ii) of the 1973 Act. This charge was dropped by the Special Director of Enforcement, and thus, it was not part of the appeal. Issue 4: Contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 The respondent was found guilty of failing to offer for sale certain amounts of foreign exchange brought to India in September 1974, contravening section 14 of the 1947 Act. The Special Director of Enforcement imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000, which was later reduced to Rs. 8,500 by the Appellate Board. This issue was not contested in the current appeal. Issue 5: Contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 The respondent was acquitted of the charge of failing to offer for sale foreign exchange brought to India in September 1975, thereby contravening section 14 of the 1973 Act. This issue was also not part of the current appeal. Analysis of the Appeal: The appellant challenged the Appellate Board's findings on charges (i) and (ii). The main argument was that the respondent should not be entitled to the exemption under clause (iii) of the first proviso to the notification dated September 25, 1958, if he is considered a "person resident in India." The court examined whether the respondent intended to stay in India for an uncertain period, which would classify him as a "person resident in India" under section 2(p)(iii) of the Act. The evidence showed that the respondent's domicile was in Belgium, and his stay in India was authorized by certificates under the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939. The Appellate Board concluded that the respondent was not domiciled in India, thus qualifying for the exemption under clause (iii) of the notification. The court agreed with the Appellate Board's findings, stating that no sufficient foundation was laid to conclude that the respondent intended to stay in India for an uncertain period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was exonerated of charges (i) and (ii). The court directed the issuance of a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court, recognizing the general importance of interpreting section 2(p)(iii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, as applicable to foreign nationals.
|
