9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leased on the plea that the said order of the Board did not finally dispose of the appeal. In view thereof, on the one hand, the appellant has been deprived of the benefit of the said amount which would have grown manifold and on the other, the respondents have deprived the benefit of the said amount to the detriment of the appellant. He further stated that the penalty of Rs. 35,000 had been imposed on the appellant on the premises that he had been held guilty on two counts, namely, contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( the Act ) whereas this Board has upheld the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(d) alone. He submitted that it is only logical that the amount of penalty sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that since the order of contravention has gone, the amount of penalty should be enhanced at least by Rs. 2,10,000. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. I find it difficult to accept Shri Gadoo s contentions that in view of this Board s observations in para 18, the only question now for determination of the Board is the quantum of enhanced penalty and not the question whether the penalty should be enhanced or not. In my opinion, there is no justification for reading the order in the restricted sense as suggested by Shri Gadoo. The parties are heard in pursuance of the requirements of section 52(5) of the Act as indicated in para 18 of the said order. Under the said provisions, the appellants are required to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no adequate justification for enhancing the penalty amount of Rs. 35,000 as already imposed under the impugned order. However, I do not consider it necessary to proportionately reduce the said amount consequent on setting aside the finding of contravention of section 9(1)(b). 6. In the result, the notice under para 18 of this Board s order of 15-11-1993 is discharged and the penalty amount of Rs. 35,000 for contravention of section 9(1)(d) is not required to be modified and is hereby declared as final. The respondent shall treat the said amount of Rs. 35,000 (deposited by the appellant by way of pre-deposit) as payment of penalty. They are directed to refund the seized and confiscated amount of Rs. 2,10,000 to the appellants within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
