- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.497 of 2011 assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision No.716 of 2008 whereunder the revisional court had dislodged the order of discharge passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai in Complaint Case No.1149/S/2002 wherein the company as well as its officer were facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act.
(3.) As the factual matrix would depict, when the matter was pending for trial before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 30.03.2005 imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crore only) against the appellant-company and penalty amounting to between Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) on each of the Directors. Being grieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the company as well as the Directors preferred Appeal No.517 of 2005 and other connected appeals before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (for short, 'the tribunal'). The tribunal reproduced Section 18 of the Act, analysed the scheme of the provisions, scrutinized the allegations made by the Department, discussed the stand put forth by the assessees and came to hold that:- "Thus, it is simple and clear from the language that goods which were purchased from Korea and Japan are not covered under Section 18(1)(a). From this sequence, it further flows that Section 18(2) is not applicable to the goods which were sold in international market by way of international transactions because these provisions are made applicable to the goods which are otherwise covered under Section 18(1) (a) and not otherwise. As the goods in question were never exported outside India so Section 18(2) is in no way can be applied to these transactions because such international selling is not governed by Section 18(1)(a) of FER Act. The impugned order has repeatedly said that for purchase of CPT colour tubes from Japan and Korea the appellant spent the foreign exchange. May it be so. But such spending of foreign exchange in international trade by an Indian person is not forbidden by Section 19 of FER Act. Shri A.C. Singh, ALA could not point out any other provision in FER Act where spending of foreign exchange is prohibited in international trade by a person resident in India. It is well known fact that international trade is transacted by spending foreign exchange but the earning of foreign exchange is also made by person resident in India. There is no law whereby Indian resident is regulated from entering into international trade. If that is so, the appellant cannot be held guilty for Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of FER Act, 1973.";