Foreign exchange contravention and confiscation upheld where admitted breach and modest penalty did not justify interference.

Contravention of the foreign exchange law was admitted, as the currency was not offered for sale within the prescribed period and was seized from the appellant's residence. Although an explanation based on family illness was advanced, the adjudicatory authority found the explanation insufficient to disturb the penalty and confiscation order. The penalty of Rs. 2,000 was treated as not excessive, and no sufficient ground was made out for interference. The order of penalty and confiscation was therefore upheld, with the principle stated that admitted contravention and a non-excessive penalty do not justify relief on sympathetic grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty and confiscation imposed for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 required interference or reduction.

Analysis: The contravention was admitted. The foreign currency was not offered for sale within the prescribed period, and the currency was seized from the appellant's residence. The explanation based on family illness was considered, but the penalty imposed was only Rs. 2,000 and confiscation was ordered under the Act. In these circumstances, the penalty was not viewed as excessive and no sufficient ground was found to interfere with the adjudication order.

Conclusion: The appeal was not entitled to relief and the order of penalty and confiscation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where contravention of the foreign exchange law is established and the penalty imposed is not excessive, interference with the adjudication order is not warranted merely on sympathetic grounds.

---