Foreign exchange controls under section 9 apply to agent-mediated payments, receipts, and deposits on behalf of persons abroad.

Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was applied broadly to payments and receipts made through an agent or on behalf of a person resident outside India. A payment by an Indian agent on foreign principal's instructions fell within section 9(1)(d), receipt of money in India on behalf of a person abroad attracted section 9(1)(b), and a deposit into the account of a person resident outside India was covered by section 9(1)(a). In each instance, the absence of Reserve Bank permission rendered the conduct unlawful. The penalties were upheld as neither excessive nor unwarranted, and the adjudication orders were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether payment made by an agent in India on instructions of a person resident outside India attracted section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (ii) Whether receipt of money in India on behalf of a person resident outside India attracted section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (iii) Whether deposit of money in the bank account of a person resident outside India attracted section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; (iv) Whether the penalties imposed were excessive or unwarranted.

Issue (i): Whether payment made by an agent in India on instructions of a person resident outside India attracted section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The provision prohibited payment to, or for the credit of, any person by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India. A payment made by an agent in India on behalf of a principal resident outside India fell within the prohibition, because the agency relationship did not take the transaction outside the statutory language.

Conclusion: The charge under section 9(1)(d) was established against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether receipt of money in India on behalf of a person resident outside India attracted section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The appellant admitted receipt of the amount in India under instructions from his brother abroad and its onward deposit as directed. Receipt of money on behalf of a person resident outside India was covered by the prohibition, and prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India had not been obtained.

Conclusion: The charge under section 9(1)(b) was established against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether deposit of money in the bank account of a person resident outside India attracted section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory bar extended to any payment to, or for the credit of, any person resident outside India. A deposit into the account of the spouse of a person resident outside India was not excluded from the scope of the provision, and the absence of Reserve Bank permission rendered the transaction unlawful.

Conclusion: The charge under section 9(1)(a) was established against the appellant.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalties imposed were excessive or unwarranted.

Analysis: The contraventions were not treated as merely technical, as the appellants gave inconsistent versions and failed to establish good faith. The penalties were modest compared with the amount involved and no confiscation was ordered, indicating a lenient approach.

Conclusion: The penalties were not excessive and called for no interference.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication orders were affirmed and the appeals failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The prohibitions in section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 extend to payments and receipts made through an agent or on behalf of a person resident outside India, and such contraventions are not shielded by claims of agency, family relationship, or alleged technical breach where the conduct is not shown to be in good faith.

---