TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, W3, (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), dated May 20, 1982. 2. The Enforcement Directorate, Jullundur, issued two memoranda dated December 29, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as SCN I and SCN II, respectively), to the appellant. The gravamen of the char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against him under the above-said Acts. The Adjudicating Officer held that the appellant contravened the aforesaid provisions and, therefore, imposed a consolidated penalty of ₹ 1,500/- upon him. In appeal, the Board found that the conduct of the appellant was undoubtedly bona fide, but at the same time, it also observed that the fact remained that he had contravened the aforementioned provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... * * * * (b) the making of any payment with foreign exchange received by way of salary or payment for services not arising from any business in, or anything done while in India. *(3) to (5) * * * * * * * * It is surprising that in spite of the explanation furnished by the appellant to the notice issued to him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence. As observed earlier, the Board found as a fact that the conduct of the appellant was undoubtedly bona fide. Once it was so held, then the appellant could not be held guilty because there was no mens rea as provided under Section 59 of the Act. 4. In this view of the matter, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
