Legally enforceable right to foreign exchange and director liability require proof before penalty can stand.

A contravention for delayed receipt of foreign exchange arises only when the claimant has a legally enforceable right to receive a definite amount, supported by proof of a binding contract, the relevant quality stipulation, breach by the foreign supplier, and quantified damages. A mere claim, debit entry, or silence after a debit note is insufficient to establish such a right. Penal liability of directors under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act also depends on a specific statutory finding linking them to the contravention under section 68(1); without that finding, penalties cannot be sustained. The commentary concludes that the order was unsustainable against all appellants.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had a legally enforceable right to receive foreign exchange so as to attract contravention of section 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether penalties could be sustained against the directors in the absence of a finding establishing their liability under section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had a legally enforceable right to receive foreign exchange so as to attract contravention of section 16(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: A mere claim or debit entry did not amount to a legally enforceable right to receive foreign exchange. The claim based on alleged inferior quality of goods required proof of a binding contract, the contractual quality stipulation, breach by the foreign supplier, and actual quantifiable loss giving rise to a determined amount of damages. In the absence of evidence establishing these elements, the appellants could not be treated as having a right to receive the claimed foreign exchange. Silence of the foreign supplier after the debit note did not amount to acceptance, particularly when receipt of the letter itself was not proved.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention under section 16(1)(a) was unsustainable, and the penalty on the company could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether penalties could be sustained against the directors in the absence of a finding establishing their liability under section 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The penalty on the directors was dependent on a specific finding regarding their status and responsibility under section 68(1). Without such a finding, imposition of penalty on the directors was not legally permissible.

Conclusion: The penalties on the directors were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order could not be sustained against any of the appellants and was set aside in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A contravention based on delayed receipt of foreign exchange arises only where a legally enforceable right to receive a definite amount of foreign exchange has accrued and been shown on evidence, and penal liability of directors requires a specific statutory finding connecting them to the contravention.

---