Limited appellate interference under foreign exchange law upheld where confiscation was set aside and penalty was substantially enhanced

Under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the High Court will not interfere with a discretionary appellate order on confiscation unless a jurisdictional error is shown. The Appellate Board's decision to set aside confiscation of currency while substantially enhancing the penalty was treated as a factual and discretionary determination within its competence. The respondent's statement, surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct were accepted as sufficient to sustain the finding of contravention, and the cited confiscation precedent was distinguished on its facts. On that basis, the limited appellate jurisdiction did not justify disturbance of the order, so the relief from confiscation stood and the enhanced penalty remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in an appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the High Court should interfere with the Appellate Board's order setting aside confiscation of currency while substantially enhancing the penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b).

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits penalty under section 50, adjudication under section 51, and confiscation under section 63 at the discretion of the adjudicating authority. The respondent's statement, the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent conduct were treated as sufficient to sustain the finding of contravention. However, the Appellate Board had increased the penalty from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000 and then set aside confiscation. The challenge was confined to the factual propriety of that discretionary decision. The Court held that, on the facts, the enhanced penalty was substantial and the order did not present any error warranting interference under the limited appellate jurisdiction conferred by section 54. The cited precedent on confiscation was distinguished on its facts, and the Supreme Court decision on competence to confiscate was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The Appellate Board's decision to set aside confiscation was not interfered with, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The limited scope of interference under section 54 did not justify disturbing the Appellate Board's discretionary order in the circumstances, so the respondent's relief from confiscation stood and the enhanced penalty remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the High Court will not interfere with a discretionary appellate order on confiscation merely because the confiscation is set aside, where the penalty has been substantially enhanced and no jurisdictional error is shown.

---