Export proceeds non-realisation and active transaction assistance upheld as culpability under foreign exchange law

Concurrent findings of guilt were not interfered with in revision where the evidence showed that export consignments were made in the name of the proprietrix's firm, export proceeds were not realised, and the second petitioner went beyond the role of a mere Customs House Agent by assisting in documentation and transaction handling. Oral and documentary evidence, including cheque transactions and participation in the export dealings, was accepted as establishing complicity under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The court found no basis to disturb the appreciation of evidence or the findings on culpability, so the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners' conviction for failure to realise export proceeds and allied acts of assistance in export transactions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The revision challenged concurrent findings that the export consignments were made in the name of the proprietrix's firm, that export proceeds were not realised, and that the second petitioner assisted in documentation and transaction handling beyond the role of a mere Customs House Agent. The Court found that the oral and documentary evidence accepted by the courts below established complicity, including cheque transactions and the involvement of the persons concerned in the export dealings. No basis was found to disturb the appreciation of evidence or the findings on culpability.

Conclusion: The conviction and findings against the petitioners were upheld and no interference was warranted in revision.

---