Customs penalty jurisdiction under foreign exchange law operates alongside criminal prosecution, with overlapping remedies preserved.

Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was construed as an independent deeming provision that applies Sea Customs Act, 1878 machinery to import-control breaches without displacing the criminal remedy under section 23. The phrase "without prejudice" was read to mean that customs enforcement operates in addition to, not in derogation of, criminal prosecution and confiscation. On that construction, the Collector of Customs retained jurisdiction to impose personal penalty under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, even where criminal liability and confiscatory powers also existed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Overlapping remedies did not oust customs jurisdiction, though prior confiscation could affect availability of the goods for a second confiscation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the Collector of Customs had jurisdiction to impose a personal penalty under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, notwithstanding the criminal liability and confiscatory power provided under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

Analysis: Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, creates criminal liability for contravention of the import restrictions and empowers the criminal court to impose punishment and order confiscation. Section 23-A, however, independently deems the relevant restrictions to have been imposed under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and gives effect to the provisions of that Act without prejudice to section 23. The expression "without prejudice" was construed to mean in addition to, not in derogation of, the criminal remedy. The two provisions operate in distinct fields: section 23 deals with prosecution of the offender as a criminal, while section 23-A incorporates the customs machinery for administrative action, including confiscation and personal penalty. The fact that both authorities may have overlapping power in relation to the goods does not destroy the Collector's jurisdiction, and prior confiscation by one authority does not nullify the power of the other, though the goods may cease to be available for a second confiscation.

Conclusion: The Collector of Customs had jurisdiction to impose the personal penalty under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and the challenge to the penalty failed.

---