TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Jesuit Society, Ranchi, in the year 1958. He later qualified himself as an architect in the year 1959 from Sir J. J. College of Architecture, Bombay. After becoming an architect, the respondent undertook a number of assignments in connection with construction of buildings for the Ranchi Jesuit Society. The respondent shifted from Ranchi to Bangalore in the year 1965 and continued to render professional services as an architect throughout the country and outside also. On an information that the respondent was maintaining foreign currency accounts abroad and was crediting the said accounts with the foreign exchange earned by him as an architect in India, his office-cum-residential premises at " Olgovil ", No. 57, D'Costa Layout, Bangalore-5, was searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Bangalore, under the provisions of section 37 of the Act on October 9, 1975. The search resulted in the seizure of certain documents evidencing collection by the respondent, architect's fee for his services rendered in India and Bangladesh and for crediting it to his accounts maintained in Belgium, Switzerland and Germany. Considerable amount of foreign currency was also seize ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer in foreign exchange in India, within one month of his coming to India and has, thereby, contravened the provisions of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, read with the Central Government Notification No. F. l(67)-EC/57, dated September 25, 1958. On enquiry, the Special Director of Enforcement, Madras, the original authority, under the Act, passed an order on March 28, 1977, finding the respondent guilty of contravening the provisions referred to above and levied the following penalties : ( i )Rs. 2,60,000 on charge No. 1; ( ii )Rs. 1 lakh on charge No. 2 ; ( iii )Charge No. 3 was dropped. On charge No. ( iv ), the respondent was found guilty and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was levied and, on charge No. ( v ), the respondent was acquitted. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi, against the findings of the Original Authority and levy of penalty on charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4. In the appeal, the Appellate Board exonerated the respondent of the first two charges and reduced the penalty imposed on charge No. ( iv ) from Rs 10,000 to Rs. 8,500. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 ( a ) of section 4 of the said Act for conversion into Indian currency of the foreign currency in which such foreign exchange is expressed : Provided that this order shall not apply to; ( i )such foreign exchange held by authorised dealers within the scope of their authority, ( ii )persons authorised by the Reserve Bank of India to hold such foreign exchange for business or other purposes within the scope of authorisation in their favour; ( iii )maintenance of, and operation on, any account in foreign currency maintained outside India by persons in, or resident in, India, but not domiciled therein: ( iv )any sum held as on July 8, 1947, in an account expressed in pound sterling and in existence prior to that date; and ( v )any sum held in any account opened on or after July 8, 1947, and expressed in pound sterling provided the general or special permission has been granted by the Reserve Bank for maintenance of such account. " Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation Act, 1947) prohibits a person from receiving any foreign exchange, except as provided in the said section. The provisions of section 14 are applicable to every person in, or resident in, India and makes it obligatory on every such person, to offer for sale, to the Reserve Bank or to such other person as the Reserve Bank may authorise, the foreign exchange owned or held by such person, subject to the exemptions as may be granted by the Central Government. The Appellate Board, on a consideration of the evidence on record and the facts of the case, has held that the respondent is a domicile of Belgium and is, therefore, entitled to exemption under clause ( iii ) of the first proviso to the notification dated September 25, 1958. In view of its findings, the Appellate Board exonerated the respondent on both charges Nos. ( i ) and ( ii ) and set aside the penalties imposed. The only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal, therefore, is: "Whether Fr. J. M. Stevens, the respondent, is entitled to exemption under clause ( iii ) of the first proviso to the notification dated September 25, 1958?" Shri Shivashankar Bhat submits that the respondent is a " pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
