TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed the appeal on August 19, 1986, and directed that the reasons shall follow later on. Accordingly, we are giving the reasons for our decision. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellant's appeal made under section 23EE of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant has been carrying on the business of exporting goods to various parts of the world. During the year 1966, it effected shipment of brassware goods to a foreign buyer in the United States valued at U.S. $ 5,976, out of which the appellant repatriated U.S. $ 2,931.42 leaving a balance of U.S. S 3,044.58 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... change Regulation Appellate Board confirmed the order of the Deputy Director but it reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 22,824. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal under section 23EE of the Act before the High Court against the appellate order. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the findings that the order of the appellate authority did not suffer from any error of law. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no contravention of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act and the High Court as well as the authorities constituted under the Act committed error in holding the appellant guilty. We find no merit in the submission. Section 12(2) is as under : "12. (2) Where any export of goods has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the full value of the goods. If an exporter sells the goods to a foreign buyer and if he fails to realise the full amount pay able by the foreign buyer in respect of goods so exported, he would be contravening section 12(2)( b ) of the Act. The appellant exported goods to the foreign buyer in the united States but he failed to repatriate the full amount payable by the foreign buyer. The findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Enforcement and the Appellate Authority leave no room for doubt that the appellant took delivery of goods himself when he was in the U.S.A., and sold the same by private sale in a surreptitious manner disregarding the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and keeping it in the dark about it. The appellant has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
