9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (10) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Dollars (equal to Rs. 6,750). Further, Messrs. Sahu Jain Limited had been informed that the exchange was sanctioned on condition that the visit was limited to a period of two months. The second appellant was not allowed any foreign exchange, but her visit was sanctioned on the representation that a certain company in the United States would bear all the expenses of her trip the that country. When the appellants returned to Delhi on the 1st of October, the customs authorities found travellers cheques of the total value of 2,590 U.S. dollars on the person of the first appellant. They were detained and the travellers cheques were handed over to the Enforcement Directorate under the orders of a magistrate. Thereafter, the appellants were required to furnish certain information about their trip A broad including particulars about how they came to be in possession if these cheques. It will be noticed that the amount of these cheques was more than the total dollar exchange sanctioned to the first appellant. The explanation given by the appellant was that travellers cheques worth 1,500 U.S. dollars were received as gift from Messrs. Maschinenbau Schoiz and Company, West Germany, and tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money to the appellants to be spent by them. It was also urged before the Appellate Board that the notification was ultra vires section 9 of. the Act, inasmuch as it dealt not only with the foreign exchange owned or held by persons at the time the notification was issued but also foreign exchange which might thereafter come into the ownership of any person. Certain other contentions were also raised before the Appellate Board, but these contentions have not been raised before us in view of the judgment of this court in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement [1963] 33 Comp. Cas. 231. The two points, therefore, that arise for consideration are whether the appellants were owners of this foreign exchange and whether the notification is ultra vires section 9 of the Act. Both these points were decided against the appellants by the Appellate Board, which confirmed the order of the Director of Enforcement. There upon the appellants obtained special leave from this court and that is how the matter has come up before us. The question whether the appellants were owners of this foreign exchange is in our opinion concluded by the concurrent finding of fact of the Director of Enforcement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the said notification or another order exempt any persons or class of persons from the operation of such order ..." The notification which was issued on March 25, 1947, is in these terms: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947), the Central Government is pleased to direct that every person resident in India who owns or who may hereafter become the owner of any foreign exchange whether held in India or abroad expressed in the currency of any country or territory specified in the schedule annexed to this Order, shall before the expiration of one month from the date of this Order, or in the case of a person hereafter becoming such owner, within one month of the date of his so becoming, offer such foreign exchange or cause it to be offered for sale to an authorised dealer being a person authorised by the Reserve Bank for the purpose, against payment in rupees at the rate for the time being authorised by the Reserve Bank in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 4 of the said Act for the conversion into Indian currency of the foreign currency in which such foreign exchange is expressed : Provided that this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and the notification could only apply to foreign exchange owned or held up to the date of the notification. We are unable to accept this construction of section 9. The Act is a permanent statute and section 9 clearly provides that every person holding or owning such foreign exchange as may be specified in the notification contemplated thereunder has to offer it for sale as provided therein. The words of the section are not confined only to foreign exchange owned or held by persons on the date the Act was passed; they apply also to foreign exchange which lay be owned or held by persons even after the Act came into force and such foreign exchange had to be offered for sale if there is a notification in that behalf. It is true that words corresponding to "who may hereafter become the owner of any foreign exchange" do not appear in the section. But the words of the section in our opinion are clear and it is implicit in them that they apply not only to those persons who owned or held foreign exchange on the date the Act came into force but to those also who own or hold foreign exchange after that date, and the notification is mainly for the purpose of specifying the kind of foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
