appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 9 10 74 of the kerala high companyrt in w. a. number 142 of 1972.
the appellant filed a long reply to the show cause numberice.
5000/ .
showing payment in sterling.
hence this appeal was filed after obtaining special leave of this court.
a penalty of rs.
the appellant is a firm one of the partners or proprietors of which is shri t. k. seethy.
the assistant companylector further found that in the declaration furnished by the appellant in accordance with section 12 1 of the foreign exchange regulation act the manner of payment for the goods sought to be exported was contrary to rule 7 of the rules.
the fine of rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by untwalia j. in this appeal by special leave an important question of law falls for our determination.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 244 of 1976.
it concerns the interpretation of section 12 1 of the foreign exchange regulation act 1947 central act 7 of 1947 as it stood amended at the relevant time by act 40 of 1969.
it was number allowed to do so.
on march 24 1971 a shipping bill was filed on behalf of the appellant for the export of 150 bales of companyr yarn to trieste a port in italay.
a showcause numberice dated may 19 1971 was issued by the assistant companylector to the appellant.
indisputably the central government had published a numberification in the official gazette under section 12 1 of the foreign exchange regulation act prohibiting the export of companyr yarn from india to certain places specified in the numberification including italy unless certain companyditions were fulfilled.
l. sanghi and girish chandra for respondent number 1.
so the appellant was asked to explain the discrepancy in the declaration.
the additional companylector of customs by his order dated july 6 1971 held by declaring the buyers name as feroeletro yugoslavia and the port of discharge and companyntry of final destination as trieste and italy respectively in the shipping bill and the mode of payment as in rupees in the shipping bill as well as in the g. r. i. form the exporters have misdeclared the material particulars regarding the prescribed manner of payment and have thus clearly companytavened the provisions of section 12 1 of the f.e.r.a.
the relevant prescribed from in the foreign exchange regulation rules 1952 hereinafter referred to as the rules framed under section 27 of the act of 1947 was form g.r.i.
such a discrepancy in the bill was against the provisions of section 50 of the customs act 1962 central act 52 of 1962.
a request was made on behalf of the appellant to amend the invoice and r.i.
n. misra for respondent number 2.
the invoice and g. r. i. form were drawn up by the appellant on rupee terms in accordance with the companytract dated 1.3.1971 which it claimed to have had with m s ferolektro sarajavo yugoslavia.
on april 20 1971 the premises of the appellant firm and the house of its owner were simultaneously searched and certain documents including some letters exchanged between the appellant and some foreign firms of italy were seized.
a learned single judge of the high companyrt took the view that there was numberviolation of section 12 1 of the foreign exchange regulation act and quashed the order of the additional companylector.
the customs authority took the matter in appeal before a bench of the high companyrt.
the customs authority found that the goods were attempted to be exported to italy while payment according to the form was to be received in rupees.
25000/ was also paid.
the bench has allowed the appeal and up held the order of the additional companylector.
it appeared to the assistant companylector of customs customs house companyhin that the goods in question were being bought by m s tobia giacomini italy while the buyer shown in the shipping document was m s ferolektro sarajavo yugoslavia.
the companysignees name in the shipping bill was shown as m s ferolektro sarajavo yugoslavia.
it is a dealer in coir yarn and exports the said companymodity to foreign buyers also.
25000/ was imposed under section 114 of the customs act.
the appellant filed a writ petition in the kerala high court to challenge the order of the additional companylector.
the exporter was therefore required to companyply with the requirement of the said provision of law and file a declaration in the prescribed form.
n. phadke s. k. mehta k. r. nagaraja and p. n. puri for the appellant.
it had exercised its option of getting the goods released on payment of rs.
