UNION OF INDIA Vs. BENDICT DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Appeal challenges the order dated 6-9-1988 passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation, Appellate Board by which order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent came to be allowed and the order of the Assessment Director of Enforcement dated 30-12-1985 came to be set aside.

(2.) The factual matrix involved in the Appeal is as follows:

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Director, the Respondent filed an Appeal before the Appellate Board for foreign exchange. The said Appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board was of the view that there are stages in the commission of offence and the first stage is its preparation and thereafter the commission of offence. Though it is a fact that the Appellant had visited the said M/s. Sudarshan Jewellers and enquired about the rate of Bahrain Dinars, the preparation according to the Tribunal were not completed for the commission of the said offence. The Tribunal was, therefore, of the view that the charge Under Section 8(1) read with Section 64(2) of the said Act, has not been sustained. The Tribunal, therefore, set aside the imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the Respondent as also the confiscation of the seized foreign currency.