Documentary evidence can defeat penalty for FERA contravention when import and remittance are otherwise proved.

Penalty for alleged contravention of FERA sections 8(3) and 8(4) was not sustained where documentary evidence, including copies of the bill of entry, revised bill of entry, bill of lading, invoice and bank communication, sufficiently linked the remittance to the imported consignment. The absence of the original exchange control copy of the bill of entry was treated as non-fatal because the import and remittance were otherwise proved. The principle applied was that penalty should not follow a mere technical or venial lapse when the transaction is genuine and the breach is not deliberate or contumacious, so the alleged contravention was not established.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained for alleged contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the ground that the appellant had not produced the exchange control copy of the bill of entry, despite other documentary evidence showing actual import and remittance.

Analysis: The documentary record, including photocopies of the bill of entry, revised bill of entry, bill of lading, invoice, and the bank communication, was found sufficient to correlate the remittance with the imported consignment. The absence of the original exchange control copy was treated as not fatal where the import itself stood proved. The decision also applied the principle that penalty is not to be imposed for a mere technical or venial lapse when the underlying transaction is genuine and the breach is not deliberate or contumacious.

Conclusion: The alleged contravention was not established so as to justify the penalty, and the appellant succeeded.

---