TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the contraventions under section 8(1) and section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were proved; (ii) Whether confiscation of the car under section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was justified and, if not, what penalty should be imposed in lieu thereof.
Issue (i): Whether the contraventions under section 8(1) and section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were proved.
Analysis: The appellant's own statements and the supporting documentary material established that foreign exchange had been retained without permission and that the sum of Rs. 1 lakh had been received on behalf of or by order of the non-resident son. The fact that the amounts were received through banking channels, or that the money was used for an urgent personal need, did not negate the statutory contraventions. The element of intention was relevant only to the quantum of penalty.
Conclusion: The contraventions under section 8(1) and section 9(1)(b) were proved and the findings on those charges were maintained.
Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the car under section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was justified and, if not, what penalty should be imposed in lieu thereof.
Analysis: Confiscation under section 63 is discretionary and is not to follow as a matter of course. The power must be exercised only where the facts justify such a course, and conscious application of mind is required. On the facts, the transaction did not show conscious wrongdoing sufficient to warrant confiscation, though the penalty could appropriately be enhanced to reflect the amount involved. The appellant's offer to pay a higher sum in lieu of confiscation was accepted as the basis for modification of relief.
Conclusion: Confiscation of the car was not justified, and the car was directed to be released on payment of Rs. 25,000 as penalty in lieu of confiscation.
Final Conclusion: The adjudication was upheld on the substantive contraventions, but the confiscation order in respect of the car was set aside and substituted by a higher monetary penalty in lieu thereof, resulting in only partial relief to the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is discretionary and requires justification on the facts; where confiscation is unwarranted, the property may be released on payment of an enhanced penalty proportionate to the contravention.
TaxTMI 
