Foreign exchange utilisation burden and director liability upheld where permitted-purpose remittance was not proved and mens rea plea failed

A foreign exchange remittance made for a specific collaboration purpose had to be shown to have been actually used for that permitted purpose, and the appellants' failure to produce evidence of receipt of technical know-how, training, or related benefits sustained the contravention and penalty. The Tribunal held that the burden lay on the person proceeded against to prove proper utilisation, and the statutory presumption of culpable mental state meant the absence of mens rea did not defeat the proceedings. It also upheld the individual director's liability because the notice clearly alleged responsibility for the company's business and that allegation was not effectively rebutted. The penalty order was affirmed and the appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to establish actual utilisation of the remitted foreign exchange for the permitted purpose justified the penalty under the foreign exchange law. (ii) Whether the burden to prove utilisation and the plea of absence of mens rea could defeat the penalty proceedings. (iii) Whether the individual director could be held liable for the company's contravention.

Issue (i): Whether failure to establish actual utilisation of the remitted foreign exchange for the permitted purpose justified the penalty under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The remittance was made for a specific collaboration purpose, and the statutory scheme required the foreign exchange to be used only for that purpose. On the record, the appellants did not produce material evidence showing that technical know-how, training, or related benefits were actually received in a manner consistent with the remittance. The Tribunal treated the absence of proof of actual utilisation as significant, particularly where the relevant facts were within the appellants' own knowledge.

Conclusion: The contravention was established and the penalty was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the burden to prove utilisation and the plea of absence of mens rea could defeat the penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory provisions placed the burden on the person proceeded against to show that the foreign exchange had been used for the permitted purpose. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory presumption of culpable mental state and on the evidentiary principle that facts especially within a party's knowledge must be proved by that party. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation or supporting evidence, adverse inference was drawn against the appellants. The plea that penalty could not be imposed without mens rea was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The burden was not discharged and the mens rea objection failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the individual director could be held liable for the company's contravention.

Analysis: The show-cause notice specifically alleged that the individual appellant was responsible for the conduct of the company's business during the relevant period, and that allegation was not effectively rebutted. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that vicarious liability of a company official depends on clear averments that the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business.

Conclusion: The individual director's liability was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was affirmed in full and the appeals failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a foreign exchange remittance is made for a specified purpose, the person proceeded against must prove actual utilisation for that purpose, and failure to do so permits adverse inference and sustains penalty; vicarious liability of a company official also depends on clear averments of responsibility for the conduct of business.

---