9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices for contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction of the notices - Interpretation of Section 12(2) of the Act - Validity of notices based on completed sales - Comparison of provisions under 1947 Act and 1973 Act - Applicability of Full Bench decision of Calcutta High Court - Quashing of show cause notices and adjudication proceedings - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The case involved a challenge by two petitioners against show cause notices issued to them for contravention of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The notices alleged failure to realize the full export value of goods from Afghanistan within the prescribed period, leading to a contravention of the Act. The petitioners contended that the notices were without jurisdiction as the exports had been completed, and the sales had already taken place. They argued that Section 12(2) applied to consignment sales, not to completed sales. The petitioners cited a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in support of their argument, which held that Section 12(2) did not apply to sales already effected before export. The court examined the provisions of Section 12(2) of the 1947 Act and compared it with the corresponding provision in the 1973 Act. The court noted that the current sub-section under the 1973 Act applied to both exporters and those contemplating exports, unlike the previous provision which only covered persons entitled to sell or procure sale. Relying on the Calcutta High Court decision, the court held that the impugned notices were invalid as the petitioners had completed the sales and did not fall within the scope of Section 12(2) of the 1947 Act. The court also found the limitation specified in the notices for realizing the export value to be contrary to the main provision of the Act. In light of the above analysis, the court quashed the show cause notices and the order for adjudication proceedings. The court also addressed a preliminary objection raised regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court clarified that in cases where the impugned orders were without jurisdiction, the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned notices and orders were quashed, with no order as to costs.
|
