TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court modifies penalty under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, emphasizes limited interference.</h1> The High Court dismissed S.A.O. No. 53 of 1983 and partly accepted S.A.O. No. 67 of 1982, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant firm from Rs. ... Foreign Exchange - Appeals Issues:Violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Alleged unauthorized payments to persons outside India - Appeal against penalties imposed by Adjudicating Officer - Scope of interference by High Court in second appeal - Reduction of penalties.Analysis:The judgment pertains to two appeals, S.A.Os. Nos. 67 of 1982 and 53 of 1983, arising from the same order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the appellant firm, a resident of India, violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, by making unauthorized payments to persons outside India during the years 1976-1980 without the necessary permissions. The Adjudicating Officer found the firm guilty of the charges and imposed penalties totaling Rs. 16,000. On appeal, the Board set aside some charges and reduced the penalties imposed on the remaining charges. Two appeals were filed in the High Court - one by the appellant firm and the other by the department.The High Court noted that under Section 54 of the Act, an appeal to the High Court lies only on a question of law from a decision or order of the Board, limiting the scope of interference by the High Court in second appeal. The Court observed that no meaningful argument challenging the Board's findings had been raised. However, concerning the amount of penalty, the Court opined that a minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000 would suffice to meet the ends of justice.Consequently, the High Court dismissed S.A.O. No. 53 of 1983, as it failed. On the other hand, S.A.O. No. 67 of 1982 was partly accepted, reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant firm from Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 5,000. The judgment highlights the legal principles governing appeals under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the limited scope of High Court interference in second appeals, and the court's discretion in modifying penalties imposed by lower authorities based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
