Independent evidence is required for foreign exchange contravention, while seized records can sustain unauthorized overseas spending and reduced penalty.
Contravention of foreign exchange law based on alleged import payment could not be sustained without independent and competent evidence: the record contained only a manager's statement, while customs had accepted the invoice value and no material showed under-invoicing or foreign payment abroad, so the charge under section 9(1)(a) failed. By contrast, seized diary entries, expenditure accounts and cash memos supported a finding that foreign exchange was arranged and spent abroad without authorisation, so the section 8(1) contravention stood established. Because the material did not show regular illegal dealing and the circumstances warranted mitigation, the penalty on that charge was reduced by 50 per cent.
Issues: (i) Whether contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the basis of the evidence relating to the alleged import payment. (ii) Whether contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 stood established and, if so, whether the penalties imposed required reduction.
Issue (i): Whether contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the basis of the evidence relating to the alleged import payment.
Analysis: The finding on this charge rested only on the statement of the manager and there was no independent evidence that the invoice value was false or that the goods had been undervalued. The customs authorities had accepted the invoice value and the material did not support an inference of under-invoicing or acquisition of foreign exchange abroad for a corresponding foreign payment. A charge of this nature required competent evidence and could not be sustained merely on the basis of a statement.
Conclusion: The contravention under section 9(1)(a) was not established and the finding and penalties on that charge were set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether contravention of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 stood established and, if so, whether the penalties imposed required reduction.
Analysis: The seized diary entries, expenditure accounts and cash memos supported the conclusion that foreign exchange had been arranged and spent abroad without authorization. The explanation that the expenditure was met from sale of carried goods or by friends abroad was not accepted on the record. However, the material did not show that the appellants were engaged in regular illegal foreign exchange dealings, and the circumstances justified some mitigation in the quantum of penalty.
Conclusion: The contravention under section 8(1) was sustained, but the penalties were reduced by 50 per cent.
Final Conclusion: The connected appeals succeeded in respect of the charge under section 9(1)(a), while the finding of guilt under section 8(1) was maintained with substantial reduction in penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: A charge of contravention involving foreign exchange payment or valuation must be proved by independent and competent evidence, but where unauthorized foreign exchange expenditure is established from seized records, the finding may be sustained and the penalty moderated on the facts.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
