Hardship plea rejected for admitted foreign exchange contravention; penalty upheld after mitigating factors were already considered.

A penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was not reduced on the plea of hardship and financial inability because the contravention was admitted and the record did not establish any real inability to pay. The Board noted that the adjudicating authority had already considered the appellant's background, family responsibilities, and other mitigating circumstances while fixing the penalty and while declining confiscation of the seized amount. As those factors had already been taken into account, the request for further reduction was rejected and the original penalty was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 warranted reduction on the ground of hardship and financial inability.

Analysis: The appellant did not dispute the contravention. The only relief sought was reduction of the penalty. The Board found that the facts recorded in the adjudication order, including the appellant's background and family responsibilities, did not establish an inability to pay. It also noted that the penalty had already been recovered long ago and that the adjudicating authority had taken the mitigatory circumstances into account while fixing the penalty and while deciding not to confiscate the seized amount.

Conclusion: The request for reduction of penalty was rejected and the penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the original penalty order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty will not be reduced merely on the plea of hardship where the contravention is admitted and the record shows that mitigating circumstances were already considered in determining the quantum.

---