Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants had contravened Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by utilising foreign exchange for a purpose other than that for which it was acquired, so as to justify the penalty imposed.
Analysis: The foreign exchange had been acquired for import of specific spare parts, and the record showed that it was utilised for the import of those very items. The finding of contravention was founded only on the customs view that the value of the imports exceeded the licence limit, but no independent material was shown to establish misuse of foreign exchange or import of prohibited goods. In proceedings under the foreign exchange law, a penalty cannot rest merely on a customs infraction unless the statutory contravention under the foreign exchange law itself is made out.
Conclusion: No contravention of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was established, and the penalty was unsustainable and set aside in favour of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty under foreign exchange law cannot be sustained unless the authority independently proves that foreign exchange was used for a purpose other than the one for which it was acquired; a mere customs-based excess in import value does not by itself establish contravention.