5 1 a b and penalty was imposed on july 5 1977.
5 1 a and 5 1 b of the foreign exchange regulation act of 1947 for short repealed act in this behalf admittedly this contravention was discovered on a raid companyducted on the premises of the appellant on october 4 1974.
50000 to rs.
55000 respectively.
on appeal while by order dated october 171978 the appellate board companyfirmed the penalties reduced the penalty from rs.
from the judgment and order dated 17.10.1978 of the foreign exchange regulation appellate board new delhi in appeal number 112 of 1977.
the addl.
questioning the legality thereof the appellant filed this appeal by special leave under art.
director enforcement directorate madras adjudicated the proceedings against the appellant and found that the appellant had purchased two engines and got them fitted into two motor vessels and agreement to the third engine was also companycluded without obtaining the permission of the reserve bank of india.
kalvin engine second hand to their vessel fazther rehman which were purchases at the cost of rs.
out of the amounts payable in pounds deducting the price for dates the appellant had fitted 230 p. gardner engine second hand to their vessel fatherlbari and 240 h.p.
solicitor general ms.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 95 of 1981.
136 of the constitution of india.
out of the amount payable through nakoda in basrah a sum of rs.
30000 was paid.
to gulf companyntries and imported euphraez zabdi dates on return.
saad salam.
for the third vessel saad salam an agreement was entered into to fit in a second hand engine with m s mohd.
zasim of kuwait at a price of 2100 kuwati dinars and payable in three annual installments.
50000 and rs.
the appellant is a firm which owned three vessels by name m.v.
it carries on export of timber coir etc.
p. singh and sunil kr.
two main companytentions have been raised by the appellant.
tulsi addl.
thereby it companytravened secs.
in consequence of discovery a numberice was issued on october 11 1974 and number having been satisfied with the explanations a show cause numberice was issued on october 18 1975 an explanation was given by the appellant and he was found to have companymitted the companytravention of sec.
singh for the appellants.
