Foreign exchange acquisition requires proof of personal ownership or control; mere travel facilitation is not enough.

Mere facilitation of passenger travel, collection of foreign travel service allowance in passengers' names, and purchase of goods as accompanied baggage did not constitute acquisition of foreign exchange under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The record did not establish that the facilitator had paid Indian currency for the tickets, obtained foreign exchange for his own account, or become the real owner of the foreign exchange or goods. On that evidentiary basis, contravention was not proved and the penalty order could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had contravened section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by acquiring foreign exchange and whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant's role was confined to facilitating the travel of passengers, collection of foreign travel service allowance in their names, purchase of goods and return of the goods as accompanied baggage. The record did not show that he had himself paid the Indian currency for the tickets or obtained foreign exchange for his own account. The foreign exchange was issued in the name of individual passengers, the goods were purchased out of that allowance, and the department did not establish that the appellant was the acquirer or real owner of the foreign exchange or goods.

Conclusion: The charge of contravention of section 8(1) was not made out and the penalty order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere facilitation of passenger travel and handling of foreign exchange issued in the passengers' names does not amount to acquisition of foreign exchange by the facilitator unless his own acquisition or ownership is established on evidence.

---