9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forcement, but modified the penalty imposed, and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- by way of penalty for contravention of Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of the Act. 2. The brief facts are as follows : - The appellant has admittedly. exported readymade garments to M/s. Universal Enterprises Ltd., Male in September to November, 1980 representing to the value of Rs. 2,63,654.50. Since the said amount in Foreign Exchange has not been repatriated, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Special Director of Enforcement and after considering the reply filed by the appellant dated 6-4-1984 the Additional Director of Enforcement passed an order dated 14-6-1985 imposing the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the firm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the amount and admittedly not sought for extension and obtain extension by Reserve Bank of India has committed contravention of Sections 18(2) and 13(3) of the Act. 5. According to him, there is no question of bona fides or lack of wilfulness in the case of contravention since the contravention is complete on the facts of non-realisation within the time provided or extension of time granted. 6. After hearing the learned counsel on eithar side, we find from the order of the Appellate Board that while confirming the contravention have observed as follows :- Therefore, notwithstanding various other efforts made by the appellant in securing realisation of the export value and their complete bona fide in the matter, the appellant No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or recover the amount and that he has contravened the provisions of sub-section 18(2) of the Act. The step that is said to have been taken by way of filing the suit for recovery of money after the notice issued by the Special Director of Enforcement will not mitigate the contravention alleged against the appellant. 8. The Supreme Court in Director of Enforcement v. M/s. MCTM Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1100) dealing with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for holding a delinquent liable to pay penalty under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Supreme Court has also held that the penalty is imposed for breach of civil obligation and not as sentence. In this case the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
