Concurrent findings on foreign exchange contravention stood where evidence showed control of the foreign account and no perversity was proved.

Concurrent findings of fact upholding contravention of foreign exchange provisions were supported by statements recorded during investigation, seized documentary evidence, and corroborative third-party statements showing that the foreign bank account was operated on the appellants' instructions in connection with company business. No perversity in those findings was demonstrated, and the penalty had already been substantially reduced by the Appellate Tribunal. Interference by the appellate court was therefore not warranted, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact upholding contravention of foreign exchange provisions and the penalties imposed thereunder.

Analysis: The material on record, including statements recorded during investigation, documentary evidence seized in search, and corroborative third-party statements, supported the finding that the foreign bank account was operated on instructions of the appellants in connection with the business of the company. The findings recorded by the authorities below were concurrent findings of fact based on voluminous evidence. No perversity in those findings was shown. The penalty had already been substantially reduced by the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted. The appeal failed.

---