1987 (7) TMI 573 - HC - FEMA

Court rules carrier's mere possession of seized foreign exchange insufficient for FERA violation appeal

Central Government Versus Abdul Mohammed And Ors.

The court upheld the decision of the Appellate Board in an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The respondent, a car ... - Issues:1. Appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 against penalty and confiscation imposed on the respondent for alleged contravention of FERA provisions.2. Interpretation of the term 'otherwise acquire' in Section 4(1) of FERA, 1947.3. Assessment of evidence regarding possession or acquisition of foreign exchange by the respondent.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal against penalties and confiscation imposed on the respondent for possessing foreign exchange without permission under FERA. The respondent, a car driver, was intercepted with seized foreign exchange in his car. He claimed the goods were handed over to him by strangers for delivery, denying ownership or knowledge of the contents. Adjudication proceedings found him in contravention of FERA, imposing a penalty and confiscating the goods.2. The central issue revolved around interpreting the term 'otherwise acquire' in Section 4(1) of FERA. The central government contended that the respondent's possession of the foreign exchange, even as a carrier, constituted acquisition, attracting FERA provisions. The Appellate Board's decision was challenged based on misinterpretation of the term and misapplication of legal precedents.3. The respondent argued that his possession of the foreign exchange did not amount to acquisition as he lacked an interest in the goods, citing legal precedents. The respondent's statement indicated he merely carried the goods without examining or owning them. The absence of evidence showing the respondent's acquisition of any interest in the seized properties was a crucial point in the case.4. The court referred to legal precedents to interpret the term 'otherwise acquire,' emphasizing the necessity of transferring an interest in the property to attract FERA provisions. The court concurred with previous judgments that mere possession as a carrier does not constitute acquisition under FERA. As there was no evidence of the respondent acquiring any interest in the seized properties, the Appellate Board's decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal.5. Ultimately, the court found no error in the Appellate Board's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing actual acquisition or possession of foreign exchange to determine violations under FERA, safeguarding against penalization in cases of mere physical possession without ownership or interest.