LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S. RAI BAHADUR SHREE RAM DURGA PRASAD (P) LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ••• c D E F G H 727 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. M/S. RAI BAHADUR SHREE RAM DURGA PRASAD (P) LTD. & ORS. November 19, 1968 [S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Foreign Exchange R£gulation Act (7 of 1947), ss. 12, 22, 23 and 23A-Forcign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952 r. 5 and Sea Custon1s Act (8 of 1878), s. 167(8)-Scope of-Form requiring declaration of correct invoice value before export-If restriction under s. 12( 1) of the F'or.eign Excha11f?e Regulation Act-Sea Custonzs Act, provisions of, when can he invoked. By a notificatiun dated August 4. 1947 issued under s. 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation. Act, 1947 and the. Foreign Exchange Regu- lation Rules, 1952, and amended thereunder, the Central Government prohibited the export to countries mentioned in its Schedule, of goods, except by post, unless a declaration supported by such evidence as · may be prescribed is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed authority that the am,,unt representing the full export value of the goods has been paid or would be paid within the prescribed period. In 1957, the res- pondents shipped goods after furnishing to the prescribed authority, namely, the Collector of Customs a declarati'On in the statutory form prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, and the Collec- tor of Customs passed the goods for shipment. In 1965, the Dy. Collec- 1or of Customs issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to sho\v cause why a penalty under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. 1878, should not be imposed, on the basis that the respondents under valued the goods deliberately, that they gave in the prescribed form false parti- culars supported by false evidence-, that there \Vas a failure to repatriate large amOunts of foreign exchanv,,e contrary to the requirements of s. 12(2) and r. 5, thats. 12(1) of the Foreign Exchan.ge Regulation Act and Rules required a declaration of the actual amount representing the full export value and a mere declaration of any value would not be ~ufficient compliance with the provisions, that under the circumstances by virtue of s. 23 A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the exportation constituted an offence under s. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The respondents thereupon, filed_ a writ petition contending that the declara- tion to the Collector of Customs was sufficient compliance with the statutory pr'Ovisions and that the Collector havin.g passed the consign- ments for shipment, had no further jurisdiction to take proceedings against them. A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitio~s, hut on appeal, the Divisional Bench allowed the petitions. In 'appeal to this Court. HELD : Per Bachawat and Hcgdc, JJ .. On the facts set out in the show cause notice thl.! respondents could not be held to have contravened s. 12(ll. ( 1) Th.c r~gulations contained in the Act are enacted. in the econon1ic anJ financial 1?terest of the coun.try. Therefore, the rigour and sanctity of the regulations should he mruntained but at the same time it should no_t be forgotten that s. 12(1) is a penal section, and in interpreting it it is _not c?mpctent to the Court to stretch its language in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature. [752 E] 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1969] 2 S.C.R. To/aram Rc/11111al v. State of Bombay [1955] 1 S.C.R., 158, 164, followed; Re. H.P.C. Production Ltd. [1962] Ch. Dn. 466, 473, and London & North Eastern Ry. Co. v. Beriman, [1946] A.C. 286, 295, applied. (2) Neither s. 12(1) nor any other provision of the Act empowers the rule-making authority to add to the restrictions imposed by the section, and, for finding out the restrictions imposed by the section one can only look at that section. The only restriction placed by s. 12(1) read with the notification~ dated August 4, 1947 is that no one should export any goods from this country \Vithout furnishing the declaration mentioned in s. 12(1). The items of information called for in the prescribed form cannot be considered as restrictions imposed by s. 12(1). They arc meirely information called for the proper exercise· of the po\vers under the Act. In fact many of them do nJt relate to t~e restrictions in1poscJ bf the section. [751 C-FJ (3) So far as goods sold to the foreign buyer arc concerned it is possible for the exporter to know the, exact export value, but that \vould not be the position when the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.