Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)
Arcot Exports, Amir Mahal, Madras-600 ... vs The Director Of Enforcement, ... on 27 September, 2001
cites
Akbar Badrudin Jiwani vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay on 14 February, 1990
The judgment referred by the counsel for the appellant of the Supreme Court in Akbar Badrudin Jisani v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, dealt with the Import (Control) Order, whereby in terms of the section 'wilful omission' was required. They were dealing with Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act 1962, which requires establishment of mens rea, such is not the case in relation to sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act. Hence the said judgment will not apply to the contravention under the Foreign exchange Regulation Act.
Section 23 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Director Of Enforcement vs M.C.T.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 19 January, 1996
8. The Supreme Court in Director of Enforcement v. MCTH Corporation Pvt. Ltd, dealing with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for holding a delinquent liable to pay penalty under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The Supreme Court has also held that the penalty is imposed for breach of civil obligation and not as sentence. In this case the appellant who is obliged to repatriate the Foreign Exchange for the export has breached the civil obligation and the provisions, section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act nowhere refers to mens rea. In other words once the factum of contravention is found
the offence is complete.
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Union Of India (Uoi), By Director Of ... vs S.K. Senjan Chettiar And Sons on 12 February, 1996
The said view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by our High Court in Union of India v. S.K. Senjan Chettiar Sons, ILR 1996 (2) Mad. 1569 dealing with Section 18(2) of the Act that mens rea is not at all required and that if it is proved that any act or omission had taken place, there is violation of the concerned section justifying the penalty.
1