1986 (7) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the appellant herein. The appellant was found guilty of contravening Section 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") under two counts, and of Section 9(1)(a), and a consolidated penalty of ₹ 250 for charges under Section 5(1)(c) and a penalty of ₹ 300 for the charge under Section 9(1)(a) was imposed by the Assistant Director, En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he payments as claimed, but put forth the claim that in the nature of business carried on by it, it was handling the funds held by them for account of the owners out of freight proceeds, and the amounts were debited to the owners' account, and all these payments are reflected in their accounts and submitted to the Reserve Bank of India from time to time, and it believed that they would be appr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inathan, Learned Counsel for the appellant, would first refer to the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority to the following effect: It is true that the appellant was acting as the agent of the foreign companies and there was a sort of running account maintained by them relating to the collection of freight and debiting of expenditure, incurred by them in India against the account of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant is bound to scrupulously carry out instructions. It is not open to the appellant to state that it would not provide hotel accommodation for their personnel or that the necessary expenses incurred for shipping operations carried out by the foreign companies would not be disbursed, from and out of the funds of foreign ship owners. There was no discretion left to the appellant except to obey th....