Resident status under foreign exchange law turns on intention and surrounding conduct, not isolated acts or bare assertions.

Residency under foreign exchange law depends on the person's intention, as assessed from conduct and surrounding circumstances rather than a bare assertion. On the facts, the appellant's continued treatment of himself as a non-resident, including applying for collaboration in that capacity, maintaining foreign residence links and foreign bank arrangements, showed no settled intention to reside in India permanently. Isolated circumstances such as import of a car and closure of one foreign account were insufficient to establish resident status, and the notification explanation was held inapplicable on those facts. The appellant was therefore not a person resident in India at the relevant time, and the alleged contraventions under sections 14 and 9(1)(a) could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was a person resident in India at the relevant time, and whether the contraventions alleged under the Act could be sustained.

Analysis: The determining factor was the appellant's intention, which had to be gathered from conduct and surrounding circumstances rather than from a bare assertion or an isolated statement. Documentary material showed that the appellant continued to act as a non-resident, including making the collaboration application in that capacity, retaining foreign residence links, and maintaining foreign bank arrangements until the final approval was received. The circumstances relied on against him, such as import of a car and closure of one foreign account, did not by themselves establish an intention to settle in India for good. The explanation in the notification was also held to be inapplicable on the facts, as it was relied on for a purpose not covered by the appellant's position.

Conclusion: The appellant was not a person resident in India at the relevant time, and the charges under sections 14 and 9(1)(a) of the Act could not be sustained.

---