LexP.V. MOHAMMAD BARMAY SONS versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
P.V. MOHAMMAD BARMA Y SONS
>-
v.
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
AUGUST 20, 1992
B
. [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 7 of 1947-Sections 5(1)(a), (b) and
23(1) read with Sections 9(1)(a), (c) and 50of the Foreign Exchange Regula-
tion Act 46 of 1973-Comparative study-Language, penalty and contraven-
c lions-Whether differ.
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Section 81 read with
Section 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act--R.epeal of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act 7 of 1947-Rights acquired or accrued, penalty, liability,
forfeiture or punishment incurred whether kept alive.
-t
D
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Section 81 read with
Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act-Legal proceeding for enforcing a
right acquired or accured or liability, penalty, fore/ eiture, punishment incurred
and legal proceedings for acquisition of a right-Distinction.
E
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Section 81 read with
section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act-Acts done, penalties, forfeiture or
punishment incurred before the Repealed Act 7 of 1947, though no proceed-
ings initiated there-unde~Whether attracts Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act-Legislative intention of Act 46 of 197:7-Appretiation-Court's duty.
F
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Sections 9(1)(a),(c) and
50 read with Sections 5(1)(a), (b) and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
y.
Act 7 of 1947-Penalty imposed-Legality of-Doctrine of double jeopardi,
Whether applicable.
G
The appellant-firm owned three vessels and carried on export of
timber, coir etc. to Gulf countries and imported Euphraez Zabdi Dates on
return.
~·
Out of the amounts payable in Pounds deducting the price for dates,
the appellant had fitted 230 H.P. Gardner engine (second hand) to its first
H vessel and 240 H.P.Kalvin engine (second hand) to its second vessel. The
960
P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR
961
-{
second-hand engines were purchased at the cost of Rs. 50,000 and Rs.
SS,000 respectively. Out of the amount payable through Nakoda in Basrah,
A
a sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid. For the third vessel an agreement was
entered into to fit in a second hand engine with one M/s. Mohd. Zasim of
Kuwait at a price of 2,100 Kuwati Dinars and payable in three annual
instalments.
B
On 4.10.1974, a raid conducted on the premises of the appellant by
~
the respondent and it was discovered that the appellant contravened Secs.
S(l)(a) and S(l)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. In
consequence of discovery a notice was issu~d on 11.10.1974 and not having
been satisfied with the explanations, a show-cause notice was issued. An c
explanation was given by the appellant. The Addi. Director, Enforcement
Directorate in the proceedings, found that the appellant had purchased
two engines and got fitted to two motor vessels and agreement to the third
-t-
engine was also concluded without obtaining the permission of the Reserve
Bank of India and that the appellant was found to have committed the D
contravention of Sec. 5(l)(a) & (b) and penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed
on S.7.1977.
On appeal, the Appellate Board confirmed the penalties, reduced
the penalty from Rs. S0,000 to Rs. 37,500.
'f'
The appellant filed this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the E
Constitution of India challenging the order of the Appellate Board.
-=-
The appellant contended that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
7of1947 was repealed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46of1973;
' I
I
that no action was taken under the repealed Act before the Act 46 of 1973 F
¥
came into force on 19.9.1973 and, therefore, the action was without juris-
diction and authority of law; that the proceedings against the appellant
was taken under the Sea Customs Act, 1922 and the adjudicating
authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,30.006 and on Appeal, the Central
b
Board of Excise and Customs set aside the penalty; that for the same
offence no proceMiQg$ under the Act 46 of 1973 could be taken; that the
finding was based on no evidence, since the respondent did not prove the
~ offence under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 Act or
under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
The respondent submitted that in view of Sec. 81 (2) of the Foreign H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1992] 3 S.C.R.
A
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Sec. 6 of the General Clauses
)'-
B
Act, the poExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.