TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 340
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... There were three contraventions under the Act, one under section 9(1)( b), another under section 9(1)(d) and yet another under section 9(1)(e) of the Act. But even according to learned counsel for the appellant, in this appeal we are concerned only with the contravention under section 9(1)(b) by the respondent. Regarding the same, the first authority levied penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 50 of the Act and also confiscated under section 63 of the Act, the sum of Rs. 50,000 involved in the contravention, which was actually seized on February 15, 1982. But, the abovesaid modification made by the Appellate Board in the appeal preferred before it by the respondent is that while it increased the abovesaid penalty from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 50 of the Act, inter alia, if any person contravenes section 9(1)(b), "he shall be liable to such penalty not exceeding five times the amount or value involved in any such contravention or five thousand rupees, whichever is more. . . Section 51 of the Act says that for the purpose of adjudging under section 50, the adjudicating officer shall hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and if on such enquiry he is satisfied that the person concerned has committed the contravention, he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit. According to section 63 of the Act, inter alia, the adjudicating officer, the first authority herein, adjudging any contravention under section 51, "may if he thinks fit" in addition to any penalty, direct that any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and force exercised by the department. But on perusing the said reply on May 7, 1982, we find that there is no such allegation in the said reply. Taking all these into account, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Board should not have set aside the confiscation. As already stated, in this connection he relies on Rengaswamy v. Deputy Director [1987] 2 ECC 242 (Mad). The relevant passage in the said judgment is as follows : "Once, it is established that by way of compensatory payment, the sum of Rs. 30,000 had been received by the appellant, it having been done in contravention of the provisions of the Act and which had prevented the Government from getting the foreign exchange under the said transaction, the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oard to Rs. 3,000. In the present case, the penalty has been actually substantially increased by the Appellate Board from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 20,000. In the light of the abovesaid features, taking an overall view, we do not think that the present case warrants any interference by this court with the discretion exercised by the Appellate Board in this regard. No doubt, while dealing with the levy of penalty in paragraph 3 of the order of the Appellate Board, the Board has held that the respondent has surreptitiously brought into the country a heavy amount without resorting to the banking channel. On that ground it increased the penalty to Rs. 20,000. While dealing with the confiscation in question in paragraph 4 of its order, it however, set....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at is levied by the first authority. In the present circumstances, we do not think that the present case involves, any interference by us under section 54 of the Act. Union of India v. Vijay Chand Jain, AIR 1977 SC 1302 also will not support the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. In that decision of the Supreme Court while the High Court held that the Director of Enforcement had no competence to order the confiscation of the Indian currency in question and quashed the impugned order, the Supreme Court mainly held that the High Court's finding that the abovesaid director had no competence to order the confiscation, was not correct and that was why the Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in quashing the order of ....