Foreign exchange contravention upheld where lower export proceeds and non-repatriation conflicted with the true payable amount.

A further appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was held not maintainable because the dispute turned on a factual determination of the amount payable by the foreign buyer, based on correspondence, contracts and surrounding evidence. The court treated the concurrent finding as one of fact, since it rested on a choice between plausible factual inferences supported by material on record. On merits, the higher amount shown in prior correspondence was accepted as the true export price, so receipt of a lesser sum and failure to repatriate the full proceeds constituted contravention. The penalty was upheld because the construction adopted preserved foreign exchange and gave effect to the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a further appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable when the concurrent findings turned on the amount payable by the foreign buyer. (ii) Whether the appellant had contravened the foreign exchange law by realising less than the full export proceeds and by failing to repatriate the full amount payable, where the authorities found the higher amount shown in prior correspondence to be the true price.

Issue (i): Whether a further appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable when the concurrent findings turned on the amount payable by the foreign buyer.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 54 was confined to a question of law arising from the appellate order. The determination of the amount payable by the foreign buyer depended on appreciation of the correspondence, the contractual documents, and the surrounding evidence. The authorities had chosen one of two plausible factual inferences on the basis of material on record. A mere choice between competing factual alternatives did not by itself raise a question of law, though absence of any supporting material could have done so.

Conclusion: The appeal did not disclose any question of law and was not maintainable on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had contravened the foreign exchange law by realising less than the full export proceeds and by failing to repatriate the full amount payable, where the authorities found the higher amount shown in prior correspondence to be the true price.

Analysis: The authorities accepted the view that the higher amount reflected in the prior correspondence and cables represented the real amount payable by the foreign buyer, and that the lower figure in the contract was not the true export value. On that basis, receipt of a lesser amount and failure to secure the full foreign exchange proceeds amounted to contravention. In economic legislation of this kind, the interpretation adopted must preserve foreign exchange resources and make the enactment effective.

Conclusion: The contraventions were established and the penalty order was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the adverse findings failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the penalty was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A concurrent finding on the amount payable by a foreign buyer, where supported by material evidence, is a finding of fact and does not ordinarily raise a question of law for further appeal; in foreign exchange matters, the court will sustain the construction that advances conservation of foreign exchange and gives effect to the statutory scheme.

---