9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Violation of Section 5(1)(aa) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and 1973. 2. Applicability of penalties for contraventions. 3. Legal sustainability of the charges and violations under the Acts. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant was found guilty of contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and 1973, respectively, by receiving payments from a person in India under instructions from a person abroad. The Assistant Director of Enforcement imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 for these violations, which was affirmed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The appellant admitted to receiving the amounts under instructions from his co-brother in Singapore, leading to the contraventions. The Board upheld the findings based on the appellant's statements and rejected the appeal against the penalty amount. 2. The appellant challenged the order on three grounds: firstly, disputing the establishment of contraventions under the Acts; secondly, questioning the invocation of the 1947 Act for a violation that occurred before the 1973 Act came into force; and thirdly, arguing against the charges related to the receipts in February and May 1974 under Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act. The court upheld the findings of the authorities below, emphasizing that the appellant's receipt of money through cheques drawn on local banks did not absolve him of the violations. 3. Regarding the second contention, the court invoked Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, supported by Section 81(3) of the 1973 Act, to allow actions under the 1947 Act for offenses committed before the 1973 Act's enforcement. The court clarified that the old Act could be applied to violations occurring during its validity, even after its repeal, as per Section 81(3) of the new Act. This interpretation was consistent with a previous judgment on a similar issue. 4. Finally, the court addressed the third contention concerning the Explanation to Section 9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act, which deals with payments received without corresponding inward remittances. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the Explanation required proof of receipt on behalf of an authorized dealer, stating that it applied to payments received by order or on behalf of an authorized dealer. As the appellant's receipts were not on behalf of an authorized dealer, the court found no merit in the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.
|
