Admitted foreign exchange contravention did not justify leniency where the penalty was not excessive and mitigation was already considered.

Admitted contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, involving receipt of money from a person resident outside India in a prohibited manner, did not warrant appellate interference. The plea that the breach was technical, solitary, inadvertent, or caused personal hardship was rejected because the adjudicating authority had already considered those mitigating factors and the penalty was not excessive. The penalty order was therefore affirmed and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 called for interference, including on the ground that the breach was technical and the penalty excessive.

Analysis: The contravention was not disputed and the receipt of money from a person resident outside India in the manner prohibited by section 9(1)(b) stood admitted. The plea for leniency based on the alleged technical nature of the breach, solitary occurrence, ignorance of law, and personal hardship was considered, but the adjudicating authority had already taken those circumstances into account. In view of the admitted violation and the modest amount of penalty, no ground was made out to disturb the order.

Conclusion: Interference with the penalty was declined and the challenge failed, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order was affirmed and the appeal stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contravention of a foreign exchange control provision is admitted and the penalty imposed is not excessive, a plea for technicality or leniency does not justify appellate interference.

---