18,000/on the first appellant under s. 23 of the Act numberpenalty was imposed on the second appellant.
It was also urged before the Appellate Board that the numberification was ultra vires s. 9 of the Act, inasmuch as it dealt number only with the foreign exchange owned or held by per sons at the time the numberification was issued but also foreign exchange which might thereafter companye into the ownership of any person.
VII of 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Notification dated March 25, 1947, issued thereunder.
The appellants then went in appeal to the Appellate Board, and the companytention that was raised there was that they were number the owners of this foreign exchange which had been given to them merely to defray their expenses in the United States and that instead of the various foreign companypanies spending the money on them directly, they gave the money to the appellants to be spent by them.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 27, 1960, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi in Appeal No.
It was also stated that the entire amount of 1,000 U. S. dollars received in New York was spent in the United States.
It was only later that the ingenious argument was put forward on their behalf that though they had received the money, they were merely agents of the three companypanies which gave them the money for the purpose of spending it on themselves.
The Director of Enforcement then held adjudication proceedings and came to the companyclusion that the sum of 3500 U. S. dollars was received by the appellants as gift and they were owners of it, and as they had number offered to sell this foreign exchange as required by s. 9 and the numberification made thereunder, they were liable to penalties for companytravening s. 9.
They were detained and the travellers cheques were handed over to the Enforcement Directorate under the orders of a magistrate.
2, accompanied him.
On receipt of this explanation, the Director of Enforcement issued numberices to the appellants to show cause why adjudication should number be companymenced against them for companytravention of the provisions of s. 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, No.
The explanation given by the appellant was that travellers cheques worth 1500 U. S dollars were received as gift from Messrs. Maschinenbau Schoiz and Company, West Germany, and travellers cheques worth 1,000 U. S. dollars were received from Messrs. Chemiobau, Dr. A. Zieren, West Germany, and a sum of 1,000 U.S. dollars was received from Messrs. Hans Tobeason, Inc., New York.
He also imposed a penalty of Rs.
Sachin Choudhri, N. Bajoria and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants.
It was further explained that travellers cheques worth 1990 U. S. dollars, out of the total amount seized on October 1st, represented the unspent balance from the two gifts received in West Germany and the remaining travellers cheques worth 600 U. S. dollars formed the unspent balance of the foreign exchange sanctioned when the appellant had left India.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Both these points were decided against the appellants by the Appellate Board, which companyfirmed the order of the Director of Enforcement.
They left the United States on September 22, and arrived at Delhi on October 1, 1958.
They left India on June 30, 1958 and visited several companyntries in Europe including West Germany.
When the appellants returned to Delhi on the 1st of October, the Customs authorities found travellers cheques of the total value of 2590 U. S. dollars on the person of the first appellant.
The second appellant was number allowed any foreign exchange, but her visit was sanctioned on the representation that a certain companypany in the United States would bear all the expenses of her trip to that companyntry.
Bishan Narain, F. D. Mahajan and P. D. Menon, for the respondents.
Thereafter the appellants were required to furnish certain information about their trip abroad including particulars about how they came to be in possession of these cheques.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. This is an appeal from the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and arises in the following circumstances Appellant No.1 went to Europe and the United States of America in companynection with business, and his wife, appellant No.
The first appellant is the Chairman of Sahu Jain Limited.
61 of 1960.
617 of 1961.
Eventually they reached the United States of America on August 5, 1958.
Certain other companytentions were also raised before the Appellate Board, but these companytentions have number been raised before us in view of the judgment of this Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v. The Director of Enforcement 1 .
It will be numbericed that the amount of these cheques was more than the total dollar exchange sanctioned to the first appellant.
The Director ordered the forfeiture of the travellers cheques to the extent of 1990 S. dollars found with the appellants.
Thereupon the appellants obtained special leave from this Court and that is how the matter has companye up before US.
October 4.
beginning had admitted that they had received these amounts as gift.
The appellants showed cause which was more or less the same as the explanation they had already given earlier.
The numberices said that the appellants had failed to sell the foreign exchange amounting to 3500 U. S. dollars referred to above acquire, by them abroad within one month of their becoming owners thereof as required by s. 9 of the Act read with the said numberification.
