9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 13-5-1992 under which a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( the Act ) on the allegation that he otherwise acquired foreign exchange of HK $10,000 without the general permission or special permission of the RBI and thereby contravened the provisions of section 8(1). The appellant submitted his w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of penalty. Hence, this final order. 3. The appellant has stated that an amount of 4,000 HK $ was won by him in the game of Rummy and an amount of 3,000 HK $ in horse race at Hongkong. As regards 3,000 HK $, he has stated that this amount was not acquired by him from his friend Hoi; some household goods of the value of about 3,000 HK $ were offered by Hoi out of love and friendship. 4. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner claimed by the appellant is not covered by the general permission as contained in the Central Government Notification No. GSR-839(F-1/3/EC/73) dated 15-6-1977 and, therefore, the acquisition of 7000 HK $ is in violation of section 8(1). The appellant has not controverted this position even in the memorandum of appeal. I have seen the Notification dated 15-6-1997 and I am of the opinion tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, in my opinion, cannot be pleaded by the appellant so as to save himself of the charge of contravention. However, there will be adequate justification for taking the same into consideration while determining the quantum of penalty. It cannot be disputed that the appellant is not a person dealing in foreign exchange. Apparently, the contravention has occurred due to his anxiety to acquire househ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
