TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (2) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The appellant was a coir exporter. He had appointed a Commission Agent, M/S Gover Horowite & Blunt Limited, London, to act as his agent abroad. During the year 1972-73, he had exported 530 bales of coir yarn valued at $ 9,895.50 to that London firm, but realised only $ 9,568.60. During the year 1974, he exported 1165 bales of coir yarn value $ 31,417.82 through the same agent, but he realised only $ 28,448.63. 3. The Enforcement Directorate, Madras issued two show cause notices to the appellant, the former on 29-2-1980 under Section 10(1) and 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 - for short the 1947 Act - for realising less than the export value of goods and by not taking action for repatriation the full amount payable by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....figure intended to enable his agent to sell the goods to his customers to his advantage. Counsel submitted that the price advantage was not component of the export proceeds and was not an amount payable to the appellant. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no contravention of any of the statutory provisions alleged and found against him. The Department countered this submission by stating, that if there was no price advantage in the foreign market, over and above the fair price fixed by the Board and mentioned in the agreement, there was no justification for the correspondence proceeding the agreement indicating a higher price. The Appellate Board, after hearing counsel, held, that there was no convincing reason given by the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him the real price was mentioned in the contract pursuant to which the goods were exported and which was lodged with the Reserve Bank of India. Counsel submitted, that contravention, of Section 12(2) of the 1974 Act will be made out only if the Department proves that the amount received by the appellant was less than the full amount payable by the foreign buyer in respect of the goods, subject to such deductions, if any, as may be allowed by the Reserve Bank of India. He submits, that the amount payable was the amount as per the contract and the higher amount disclosed by the correspondence and cables was only a fictitious amount. Such higher amount not being 'payable' non-realisation of that amount or failure to take any action to secure ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of the goods, subject to such deductions, if any, as may be allowed by the Reserve Bank of India. It was equally competent for them to hold that explanation offered by the appellant was not satisfactory or convincing and then determine that the full amount payable by the foreign buyer was that disclosed by the correspondence and the cables, which proceeded the agreement. 8. Shri Balachandran, Counsel appearing for the revenue, submitted that the appeal is not competent under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Act, because a Section appeal from the decision of the Appellate Board can be entertained only on a question of law arising from a decision or order of the Appellate Board under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r than the other may not involve a question of law at all. It is significant that in the present case, the original and appellate authorities come to the conclusions on this question of fact largely on the basis of the correspondence which the appellant has offered. Reference is also made by the adjudicating officer to the statement of the appellant and his manager on 4-6-1976 and 26-11-1976 respectively in relation to the transactions which are involved in the charges levelled against the appellant. We are of the opinion that no question of law is involved which required appellate scrutiny by this court under Section 54 of the 1973 Act. We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the preliminary objection raised by the revenue. 12. Even on meri....