Appeal Nos
45 to 49 of 1968
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 20 1967 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos 247 to 251 of 1966
CK Daphtary Attorney General Niren De Solicitor General NS Bindra Mohan Kumaramangalam RH Dhebar AS Nambiar and  SP Nayar for the appellants in CAs
45 and 47 to 49 of 1968 
Niren De Solicitor General Mohan Kumaramangalam NS Bindra RH Dhebar AS Nambiar and SP Nayar for the appellants in CA No 46 of 1968
AK Sen Soli Sorabji SR Vakil BD Barucha GL Sanghi and SK Dholakia for the respondents in CA No 45 of 1968
NA Palkhivala Soli Sorabji DN Misra SR Vakil and BD Barucha for the respondent in CAs
Nos 46 and 49 of 1968
GL Sanghi SR Vakil and BD Barucha for respondents in CA No 47 of 1968 and their respondent in CA No 48 of 1968
NA Palkhivala PP Ginewala DN Mukherjee and Ajit Chaudhury for interveners Nos 1 to 4
AK Sen SD Khetri Avadh Behari and RN Bajoria for intervener No 5
NA Palkhivala and DN Gupta for intervener No 6
M C Chagla and DN Gupta for intervener No 8
NA Palkhivala AK Basu SC Mitter and 1
N Shroff for intervener No 7
MC Setalvad and MK Banerjee for intervener No 9
SIKRI J delivered a dissenting Opinion
The Judgment of BACHAWAT and HEGDE JJ
was delivered by HEGDE J SiKri J
These five appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court accepted the Writ Appeals against the judgment of Kailasam J in Writ Petitions Nos
1592 1593 1594 and 1601 of 1966 and 3948 of 1965 and directed the issue of writs of prohi 731 bition to the Union of India the Collector of Customs Madras and the Deputy Collector of Customs Visakhapatnam appellants before us prohibiting them from taking any action in pursuance of certain show cause notices issued by the Deputy Collector Customs Visakhapatnam
Common questions of law are involved in these appeals and it would suffice if I give facts in Writ Petition No 1592 of 1966 out of which Civil Appeal No 45 of 1968 arises
The relevant facts in that writ petition for appreciating the points raised before us are as follows On February 17 1965 the Deputy Collector of Customs Visakhapatnam issued memorandum No S211465 to Ms Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad Private Ltd Tumsar and five others hereinafter referred to as the Shippers
In this memorandum in brief it was stated that the Shippers had entered into a formal contract on October 13 1965 with Ms Intercontinental Ores Supply Corporation New York for the shipment of 20000 tons of Indian Manganese Ore of the grade of 43 Mn from the port of Visakhapatnam at a price of 067 per unit of Manganese per dry long ton fob VisakhapatnamBombay
The Shippers exported from the port of Visakhapatnam 3300 tons of Indian Manganese per ss ALPHEM  under the cover of Shipping Bill No 187 dated March 20 1957 declaring therein that the export was being made in pursuance of the aforesaid contract
A GRI form was attached
It was stated that a certain note book which had been seized earlier in August 1963 disclosed that a sum of 2529824 was received on April 21 1957 from INOSCO ie Intercontinental Ores Supply Corporation New York the consignee of the subject goods the amount having been credited to an account in the name of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agrawal with the Trust Co of North America 115 Broadway New York
It was further alleged in the memorandum that the Shippers had derived financial benefits in respect of the subject export over and above those revealed to the Customs Authorities andor other concerned authorities and the information about them was deliberately suppressed
It was further alleged that this constituted a contravention of section 121 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 read with Notification No 1217 F 147 dated August 4 1947 as amended issued thereunder and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules 1952
I may mention that by this notification the Central Government had prohibited the export otherwise than by post of any goods either directly or indirectly to any place outside India other than any of the countries or territories in the Schedule annexed to this order unless a declaration supported by such evidence as may be prescribed is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed 732 authority that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner According to the Deputy Collector Customs the goods have been thus exported in contravention of the restrictions and prohibitions imposed under section 19 of the  read with section 121 and the Notification No 12 17 F 147 dated August 4 1947 issued thereunder and section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 which exportation constituted an offence liable to be punished under section 1678 of the 
Accordingly the parties concerned were called upon to explain the matter and show cause in writing to the Collector of Customs Madras why a penalty should not be imposed on them him under section 1678 of the 
It appears that a number of such memoranda were issued in respect of diverse shipments
Thereupon five petitions were filed in the High Court of Madras
In Writ Petition No 1592 of 1966 it was alleged that 125 show cause notices had been issued to the petitioners on various dates and it was prayed that a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ order or direction under article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting the respondents from taking any action in pursuance of the said show cause memos may be issued
Various allegations were made but I need only mention the following allegations
It was submitted that the petitioners had complied with the statutory provisions inasmuch as a declaration in statutory form had been furnished to the prescribed authority
to wit the Collector of Customs and the Collector of Customs having passed the consignments for shipment had no further right or jurisdiction to take proceedings relating to the consignments in question
It was contended that if a declaration is found to be false it did not mean that there was a breach of the provisions of section 121
In reply it was contended that what was required under section 121 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Rules was not any value but the actual amount representing the full export value and a mere declaration of any value would not be sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 121 of the Foreign Exchange Act
The learned Single Judge Kailasam J dismissed the petitions
Various points were urged but on the point addressed to us he held that the declaration to be given by the exporters meant not only that the value of the goods will be paid in the prescribed manner but also that the full export value of the goods given is the correct value
733 I may mention that before the Division Bench the case of the Revenue was clarified in an affidavit and we may set out para 5 thereof Since the Court has now directed the respondents to file a supplemental affidavit clarifying the stand taken by the department 1 state respectfully that the stand taken by the department both in the show cause memo and here is that the essence of the offence committed by the appellants is that in the declaration required under section 121 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act they have deliberately given false particulars supported by false evidence
By giving this fraudulent declaration they have secured the export of their goods
This fraud vitiates the declaration itself thereby making the export one in violation of the prohibition contained in Section 121 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act It is not necessary to set out the modus operandi adopted by the petitioners but 1 may mention that it was contended that a scheme was entered into prior to the actual export and the goods were undervalued deliberately and the department was induced to accept their declarations by means of false evidence and fraudulent suppression of facts
It is suggested that by this method a sum of Rs 32000000 had been suppressed and there has been a failure to repatriate a corresponding amount of foreign exchange which had been earned surreptitiously
It was further stated that this scheme was adopted for all the shipments covered by the show cause notices and also for many other shipments in respect of which show cause notices yet remain to be issued
The Division Bench on appeal came to the conclusion that as the declarations were made under section 121 and as they were scrutinised by the authorities it is not possible to contend that these goods were either exported or attempted be exported in violation of the prohibitions or restrictions imposed by law and are therefore liable to be confiscated under section 1678of the 
The Division Bench further held that the alleged fraud on the part of the petitioners did not make any difference
According to the Division Bench if the petitioners had misled the authorities by false representations or failed thereby to repatriate foreign exchange by virtue of his obligation under section 122 these are different offences for which separate and specific penalties can be imposed
 The relevant statutory provisions at the time of exportation were as follows The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 section 121 The Central Government may by notification in 4 Sup
CI69 14 734 the Official Gazette prohibit the taking or sending out by land sea or air hereinafter in this section referred to as export of any goods or class of goods specified in the notification from India directly or indirectly to any place so specified unless a declaration supported by such evidence as may be prescribed or so specified is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed authority that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
2 Where any export of goods has been made to which a notification under sub section 1 applies no person entitled to sell or procure the sale of the said goods shall except with the permission of the Reserve Bank do or refrain from doing any act with intent to secure that a the sale of the goods is delayed to an extent which is unreasonable having regard to the ordinary course of trade or b payment for the goods is made otherwise than in the prescribed manner or does not represent the full amount payable by the foreign buyer in respect of the goods subject to such deductions if any as may be allowed by the Reserve Bank or is delayed to such extent as aforesaid Provided that no proceedings in respect of any contravention of this sub section shall be instituted unless the prescribed period has expired and payment for the goods representing the full amount as aforesaid has not been made in the prescribed manner
3 Where in relation to any such goods the said period has expired and the goods have not been sold and payment therefor has not been made as aforesaid the Reserve Bank may give to any person entitled to sell the goods or to procure the sale thereof such directions as appear to it to be expedient for the purpose of securing the sale of the goods and payment therefor as aforesaid and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision may direct that the goods shall be assigned to the Central Government or to a person specified in the directions
4 Where any goods are assigned in accordance with sub section 3 the Central Government shall pay to the person assigning them such sum in consideration of the net sum recovered by or on behalf
of the Central 735 Government in respect of the goods as may be determined by the Central Government
5 Where in relation to any such goods the value as stated in the invoice is less than the amount which in the opinion of the Reserve Bank represents the full export value of those goods the Reserve Bank may issue an order requiring the person holding the shipping documents to retain possession thereof until such time as the exporter of the goods has made arrangements for the Reserve Bank or a person authorised by the Reserve Bank to receive on behalf of the exporter payment in the prescribed manner of an amount which represents in the opinion of the Reserve Bank the full export value of the goods
6 For the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of this section and any order or directions made thereunder the Reserve Bank may require any person making any export of goods to which a notification under sub section 1 applies to exhibit contracts with his foreign buyer or other evidence to show that the full amount payable by the said buyer in respect of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
section 22
No person shall when complying with any order or direction under section 19 or with any requirement under section 19B or when making any application or declaration to any authority or person for any purpose under this Act give any information or make any statement which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or not true in any material particulars
section 23
1 If any person contravenes the provisions of section 4 section 5 section 9 or sub section 2 of section 12 or of any rule direction or order made thereunder he shall a be liable to such penalty not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange in respect of which the contravention has taken place or five thousand rupees whichever is more as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement in the manner hereinafter provided or b upon conviction by a Court be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with line or with both
736 IA Whoever contravenes a any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule direction or order made thereunder other than those referred to in sub section 1 of this section and section 19 shall upon conviction by a Court be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both b any direction or order made under section 19 shall upon conviction by a Court be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees
1B Any Court trying a contravention under subsection 1 or sub section IA and the authority adjudging any contravention under clause a of sub section 1 may if it thinks fit and in addition to any sentence or penalty which it may impose for such contravention direct that any currency security gold or silver or goods or any other money or property in respect of which the contravention has taken place shall be confiscated to the Central Government and further direct that the foreign exchange holdings if any or the person committing the contravention or any part thereof shall be brought back into India or shall be retained outside India in accordance with the directions made in this behalf
Explanation
For the purposes of this sub section property in respect of which contravention has taken place shall include deposits in the bank where the said property is converted into such deposits 2 Notwithstanding anything contained in section 32 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 it shall be lawful for any Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government and for any Presidency Magistrate to pass a sentence of fine exceeding two thousand rupees on any person convicted of an offence punishable under this section
3 No Court shall take cognizance a of any offence punishable under sub section 1 except upon complaint in writing made by the Director of Enforcement or b of any offence punishable under sub section 1 A of this section or under section 54 of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 as applied by section 19 of this Act except upon complaint in writing made by the Director of Enforcement or any officer authorised in 737 this behalf by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank by a general or special order Provided that where any such offence is the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule direction or order made thereunder which prohibits the doing of an act without permission no such complaint shall be made unless the person accused of the offence has been given an opportunity of showing that he had such permission
4 Nothing in the first proviso to section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 shall apply to any offence punishable under this section
section 23A
Without prejudice to any provisions of section 23 or to any other provision contained in this Act the restrictions imposed by sub sections 1 and 2 of section 8 sub section 1 of section 12 and clause a of sub section 1  of section 13 shall be deemed to have been imposed under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act 1879 and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word shall therein the word may were substituted The 167
The offences mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable to the extent mentioned in the third column of the same with reference to such offences respectively Sections of this Act Offences to which Penalties offence has reference 8
If any goods the importation 18 Such goods shall be liable or exportation of which is for  to confiscation the time being prohibited or 19 and restricted by or under Chapter IV of this Act be imported Any person concerned in into or exported from India any such offence shall be contrary to such prohibition or liable to a penalty not ex ceeding three times the value restriction or of the goods or not exceeding If any attempt be made so to one thousand rupees
import or export any such goods or If any such goods be found in any package produced to any officer of Customs as containing no such goods or 738 Offences Penalties If any such goods or any dutiable goods be found either before or after landing or shipment to have been concealed in any manner on board of any vessel within the limits of any port in India or If any goods the exportation of which is prohibited or restricted as aforesaid be brought to any wharf in order to be put on board of any vessel for exportation contrary to such prohibition or restriction
Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules 1952
Form of declaration 1 A declaration under section 12 of the Act shall be in one of the forms set out in the First Schedule as the Reserve Bank may by notification in the Gazette of India specify as appropriate to the requirements of a case
2 Declarations shall be executed in sets of such number as indicated on the forms
Authority to whom declaration to be furnished
1 The original of the declaration shall be furnished to the Collector of Customs provided that when export is by post the original of the declaration shall be furnished to the postal authorities
2 Copies of the declaration shall be submitted to the authorities and in the manner specified on forms
3 The documents pertaining to every export passed by the Customs shall within 21 days from the date of the export be submitted to the authorised dealer mentioned on the relevant declaration form unless the Reserve Bank in its discretion authorises otherwise
Evidence in support of declaration
1 The Reserve Bank or subject to such directions if any as may be given by the Reserve Bank the Collector of Customs or the postal authorities may to satisfy themselves of due compliance with section 12 of the Act 379 require such evidence in support of the declaration as may satisfy them that the exporter is a person resident in India or has a place of business in India
2 The Reserve Bank or subject to such directions if any as may be given by the Reserve Bank the Collector of Customs or the Postal authorities may require any exporter to produce in support of the declaration such evidence as may be in his possession or power to satisfy them
ii that the invoice value stated in the declaration the full value
of the goods and iii that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will be paid to the exporter
Explanation  The points which have emerged from the discussion at the Bar and which require determination may be formulated thus 1 What is the meaning of the expression restrictions mean posed by sub section 1 of section 12 occurring in section 23 A of the Exchange Act  Can other sections of the Exchange Act be looked at for determining the ambit of the restrictions imposed by section 121  Do restrictions imposed under the Rules made under the Exchange Act and relating to section 121 come within the meaning of this expression  2 What is the true meaning of the words a declaration supported by such evidence as may be prescribed or so specified is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed authority that the amount representing the full export value of goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner  Is it necessary that the declaration shall be made honestly or in good faith  Should it disclose the true export value it a breach of the sub section if a declaration is made honestly but happens to show incorrect export value to a small but not material extent  Does not a deliberately false declaration contravene the provisions of section 121  3 If an action is a contravention of section 121 and other provisions of the Exchange Act eg sections 22 23 122 123 and 125 was it the intention that it should be treated as a contravention of section 121 Before dealing with point 1 mentioned above a few preliminary observations may be made
I have to construe an Act which was enacted in the interest of the national economy
A deliberate large scale contravention of its provisions would affect 740 the interests of every man woman and child in the country
Such an Act 1 apprehend should be construed so as to make it workable it should however receive a fair construction doing no violence to the language employed by the Legislature
It was said that if two constructions are possible the one that is in favour of the subject should be accepted
It is not necessary to pronounce on this proposition for I have come to the conclusion that there is one true construction of section 121
But I should not be taken to be assenting to this proposition in so far as it is applicable to an enactment like the Exchange Act for no subject has a right to sabotage the national economy
Coming to the first pointed find that the following words of Lord Blackman express my views as to how the construction of section 23A should be approached
He was dealing with a case where a single section of an Act of Parliament has been introduced into another Act
He said in The Mayor of Portsmouth vs Charles Smith 1 When a single section of an Act of Parliament is introduced into another Act I think it must be read in the sense which it bore in the original Act from which it is taken and that consequently it is perfectly legitimate to refer to all the rest of that Act in order to ascertain what the section meant though those other sections are not incorporated in
the new Act
I do not mean that if there was in the original Act a section not incorporated which came by the way of a proviso or exception on that which is incorporated that should be referred to
But all others including the interpretation clause if there be one may be referred to
 It seems to me that this is the correct way of looking at section 23A of the Exchange Act for another reason
The restrictions imposed by section 121 cannot be different for the purpose of the Exchange Act from that for the purposes of section 1678 of the  for the breach of section 121 may also be punishable under the Exchange Act
In other words the same contravention may attract penalties under the as well as the Exchange Act and it would be incongruous to hold that the restrictions imposed by a section are different for different Acts
Then am I entitled to take into account the restrictions imposed by the Rules made under section 27 of the Exchange Act  It seems to me that rules not deferrable to section 121 cannot be taken into account but any restrictions imposed by rules referrable to section 121 must be treated as restrictions imposed by section 121
Section 121 itself contemplates rules being made on three points
1 10 AC 364
371 741 ie 1  the evidence which is to support the declaration 2 the authority to which the declaration is to be furnished and 3 manner of payment
It was said that the words by section 121 exclude the restrictions made under the Rules
But though in some contexts and scheme of an Act this proposition may be true the general rule is as stated by Lord Alverstone
CJ in Wellingdale vs Norris1 as follows If it be said that a regulation is not a provision of an Act I am of opinion that Rex vs Walker2 is an authority against that proposition
I should certainly have been prepared to hold apart from authority that where a statute enables an authority to make regulations a regulation made  under the Act becomes for the purpose of obedience or disobedience a provision of the Act
The regulation is only the machinery by which Parliament has determined whether certain things shall be or shall not be done These observations were approved by the House of Lords in Wicks vs Director of Public Prosecution3 thus There is of course no doubt that when a statute like the Emergency Powers Defence Act 1939 enables an authority to make regulations a regulation which is validly made under the Act ie which is intra vires the regulation making authority should be regarded as though it were itself an enactment
As the Court of Criminal Appeal has pointed out in its judgment that was decided by the Divisional Court in Willingdale vs Norris1 and it appears to me that decision is perfectly correct
Consequently the charge against the appellant here was in effect that he had committed crimes defined or contained in the Act of Parliament
 The Court of Criminal Appeals had stated in Rv Wicks4 as follows The first observation which the court would make is that they are in complete agreement with the decision of the Divisional Court in Willingdale vs Norris1 that where a statute enables an authority to make regulations a regulation made under the Act becomes for the purpose of obedience or disobedience a provision of the Act
The regulation is only the machinery by which Parliament has determined whether certain things shall or shall not be done
It is therefore clear that the 1 64
2 1875 LR 10QB 355
3 206
4  531
742 regulations must be read as though they were contained in the Act itself
They derive their efficacy solely from the Act and accordingly expire with the Act but it may be that the legislature has provided that some restrictions or consequences shall remain effective notwithstanding the expiration of the Act In a recent case Rathbone vs Bundock1 the Divisional Court following these cases held that regulation 89 of the Motor Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1955 was for the purpose of obedience or disobedience a provision of the Road Traffic Acl 1930
In Dr Indramani Pyarelal Gupta vs W R Nathu and Others2 this Court was concerned inter alia
with the interpretation of section 31  of the Forward Contract Regulation Act 1952 which used the words such duties as may be assigned by or under this Act
Ayyangar J speaking for the majority observed Learned Counsel is undoubtedly right in his submission that a power conferred by a bye law is not one conferred by the Act for in the context the expression conferred by the Act would mean conferred expressly or by necessary implication by the Act itself 
The words under the Act would in that context signify what is not directly to be found in the statute itself but is conferred or imposed by virtue of powers enabling this to be done in other words by laws made by a subordinate law making authority which is empowered to do so by the parent Act
This distinction is thus between what is directly done by the enactment and what is done indirectly by rule making authorities which are vested with powers in that behalf by the Act
vide Hubli Electricity Bombay Ltd vs Province of Bombay2 and Narayanaswami Naidu vs Krishna Murthi4
The observations of Subba Rao
J as he then was
at p 775 relied upon by the appellants are these I would therefore construe the words by or under this Act or as may be prescribed as follows by this Act applies to powers assigned proprio vigore by the provisions of the Act under this Act applies to an assignment made in exercise of an express power conferred under the provisions of the Act and may be prescribed takes in an assignment made in exercise of 1 2  737
3 67 IA 57
4 ILR 547
743 a power conferred under a rule
This construction gives a natural meaning to the plain words used in the section and avoids stretching the language of a statutory provision to save an illegal bye law
 In my opinion that case does not assist me because the Court was construing the words by or under the Act and Ayyangar J specifically discussed the meaning of by the Act in the context
Regarding the case of United States vs George R Eaton1 relied on appellants  behalf I find that the Supreme Court of the United States explained and distinguished that case in Singer vs United States  2  as follows United States vs Eaton1 turned on its special facts as United States vs Grirnaud3 emphasizes
It has not been construed to state a fixed principle that a regulation can never be a law for purposes of criminal prosecutions
It may or may not be depending on the structure of the particular statute
The Eaton case involved a statute which levied a tax on oleomargarine and regulated in detail oleomargarine manufacturers
Section 5 of the statute provided for the keeping of such books and records as the Secretary of the Treasury might require
But it provided no penalty for non compliance
Other sections however laid down other requirements for manufacturers and prescribed penaLties for violations
Section 20 gave the Secretary the power to
make all needful regulations for enforcing the Act
A regulation was
promulgated under section 20 requiring wholesalers to keep a prescribed record
The prosecution was for non compliance with that regulation
Section 18 imposed criminal penalties for failure to do any of the things required by law
 The Court held that the violation of the regulation promulgated under section 20 was not an offence
It reasoned that since Congress had prescribed penalties for certain acts but not for the failure to keep books the omission could not be supplied by regulation
And Congress had not added criminal sanctions to the
rules promulgated under section 20 of that Act
 I would in this connection prefer to apply the English decisions referred to above as section 121 itself does not impose any restrictions and contemplates certain things to be prescribed
1  2   290
3  518 51955 L Ed 563 56831 section Ct 480 744 Coming now to the construction of section 121 it seems to me that what it requires is a declaration of some actual figure which according to the declarant represents the full export value 
Otherwise there is no point in requiring support of such evidence as may be prescribed
Further it is clear that some actual figure has to be mentioned when the exporter declares that he has received the amount representing the full export value
I apprehend that the same applies in the case where the amount has not yet been received
The rules make this clear
Rule 52ii which requires the invoice value stated in the declaration to be the full export value of goods is referrable to section 121 of the Exchange Act and may be taken to indicate that an actual figure has to be mentioned
It may be an estimate  if the goods have not been sold before the export but a figure must be indicated
Coming to the crux of the problem does section 121 by itself require absolutely correct particulars  It is said that section 121 does not require it for section 22 requires the exporter only to make a declaration which he knows or has reasonable cause to be false or not true in any material particulars
 How could it be that if section 121 itself requires absolutely correct particulars section 22 limits the requirement  It seems to me that there is force in this contention but only to a limited extent
Section 121 and the notification dated August 4 1947 made under it impose a conditional prohibition
The section confers a power on an exporter to lift the bar by a unilateral declaration
When such a power is conferred on an exporter by a statute good faith on his part must at least be implied and be a condition prerequisite
This construction is necessary in order to prevent abuse of the power given by the Act
See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 11th Edition p 116
If the exporter makes a deliberately false declaration he contravenes section 121 because he has not made the statutory declaration in good faith
It is not necessary to say that the declaration becomes nullity because the breach of good faith a condition prerequisite is itself a contravention of the conditional prohibition or restriction within section 1678 of the read with section 23A and section 121 of the Exchange Act
Clerical mistakes and mistakes made bona fide even in respect of material particulars are not within the mischief of section 121 but a deliberate falsehood and a deliberate evasion of the provisions of section 121 come within section 121
Otherwise the ambit of section 121 read with section 23A would be narrowed to the point of extinction
An exporter and persons concerned in the export could with impunity give a deliberately false declaration but in apparent compliance with section 121 and deprive this country of foreign exchange
I cannot give an interpretation which will make 745 a mockery of the section
But it is said that other sections of the Exchange Act will take care of such an exporter
He can be prosecuted under section 231A read with section 22
He can be sentenced to imprisonment which may extend to two years
He can also be fined to an unlimited extent
The Foreign Exchange lost can be retrieved by a court acting 1 under section 23B
This may be true that the exporter is liable as stated above
But what about persons concerned in the illegal export  It is the persons concerned in the export which in most cases enables the exporter to successfully evade the provisions of the Exchange Act
These persons are taken care of only under the Customs Act
If they are covered by section 1678 there is no reason to exclude the exporter himself
It is not unusual to make persons liable both to penalties under the and the Exchange Act
It is indeed conceded that if no declaration is given under section 121 and the goods are exported the exporter and the persons concerned in the export would be liable to be proceeded both under section 1678 of the and the Exchange Control Act
I can draw no distinction between such an exporter and an exporter who gives a deliberately false declaration for the purpose of the applicability of section 1678 of the 
I am not impressed by the argument that the Foreign Exchange Act deals with the basic policy regarding foreign exchange and it was not the intention to punish offenders who violate foreign exchange restrictions under the 
It is section 23A of the Exchange Act which itself deems the restrictions imposed under section 121 to have been imposed under section 19 of the 
Not only that
The opening sentence of section 23A makes it clear that this is without prejudice to section 23 and to any other provisions in the Exchange Act
In other words the provisions of section 23 and other relevant sections are not affected or limited
They will have their full operation
The fact that the exporter may be proceeded under section 122 I may assume that this is so for the purpose of this case for non payment of the full amount payable by the foreign buyer or that the Reserve Bank can in the eventualities mentioned in section 125 require the holding up of shipping documents or that the Reserve Bank by exercising powers under section 126 secure contracts and other evidence to discover the full amount payable do not throw any light on the construction of section 23A and section 121 except that the Legislature is anxious that the full export value shall be received in this country
Section 23A read with section 121 calls in the aid of Customs authorities to achieve the same object
but ropes in alongwith the exporter the persons concerned in the prohibited export
746 I am not able to appreciate how the existence of section 16737 section 16772 and section 16781 is of any assistance for the purpose of interpreting section 23A and section 121 of the Exchange Act
It may be I do not decide it that an exporter like the respondents will also be liable to be proceeded against under these items of section 167
Taking the facts as alleged by the Customs authorities to be true as they must be taken to be true for the purpose of this application under article 226 it seems to me that no case for the issue of a writ of prohibition has been made out
In the result the judgment of the Appeal Court is reversed and that of the learned Single Judge restored
The appellants will have costs incurred in this Court
One hearing fee
Hegde J We had the advantage of studying the judgment just now delivered by our brother Sikri 3
but we regret that we are unable to agree with the conclusions reached by him
After carefully analysing the arguments advanced before us we have come to the conclusion that no grounds were made out to interfere with the order of the Appellate Bench of the Madras High Court
We shall now proceed to give our reasons in support of our conclusion
The respondents in these appeals are exporters of manganese ore
It is said that they had exported large quantities of manganese ore after ostensibly complying with the formalities of law but in reality they had under invoiced the various consignments sent by them and further that they had failed to repatriate foreign exchange of the value of about three chores of rupees obtained by them as the price of the manganese ore exported
It is said that by so doing they had contravened section 121 of the Foreign Exchange ReguLation Act 1947 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act read with section 23A of that Act and sections 19 and 1678 of the 
The case for the appellants is that dying the search of the houses of some of the respondents on suspicion that they had hoarded gold certain documents from the house of some of the respondents were seized and those documents disclosed the facts set out above
On the basis of the said information the Deputy Collector of Customs Visakhapatnam issued several notices to the respondents requiring them to show cause why no action should not be taken against them under the aforementioned provisions
On receipt of those notices the respondents moved the High Court of Madras under article 226 of the Constitution praying that court may be pleased to quash the show cause notices in question and prohibit the appellants from taking any further action on the basis of those notices
Those petitions were dismissed by Kailasam J on September 1 1966 747 but his orders were reversed by the Appellate Bench of that Court by its Judgment dated September 12 1967
The Appellate Bench granted the reliefs prayed for by the respondents
It is as against that decision these appeals have been brought after obtaining the necessary certificates from the High Court
The only question that arises for decision in these appeals is whether on the facts set out in the show cause notices which facts have to be assumed to be correct for the purpose of these proceedings the respondents can be held to have contravened section 121 which reads The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette prohibit the taking or sending out by land
sea or air hereinafter in this section referred to as export of any goods or class of goods specified in the notification from India directly or indirectly to any place so specified unless a declaration supported by such evidence as may be prescribed or specified is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed authority that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
 On August 4 1947 the Central Government issued a notification prohibiting the export of all goods to any place outside India unless a declaration supported by such evidence as may be prescribed is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed authority that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
Rule 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules 1952 framed under section 27 of the Act provides that a declaration under section 12 of the Act shall be in one of the forms set out in the First Schedule as the Reserve Bank may by notification in the Official Gazette specify as appropriate to the requirements of a case
The form that is relevant for our present purpose is GRI Rule 5 empowers the Reserve Bank the Collector of Customs or the postal authorities to require the exporter to furnish such evidence in support of the declaration as may satisfy them that the exporter is a person resident in India or has a place of business in India
These authorities may also require the exporter to produce in support of the declaration such evidence as may be in his possession or power to satisfy them 1 that the destination stated on the declaration is the final place of destination of the goods exported ii that the invoice value stated in the declaration is the full export value of the goods and iii that the  amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will be paid to the exporter
Form GR 1 stipulates that the exporter should furnish the information called for therein
748 Therein the exporter is also required to make the following declaration
I hereby declare that I am the sellerconsignor of the goods in respect of which this declaration is made and that the particulars given above are true and a that the invoice value declared is the full export value of the goods and is the same as that contracted with the buyer b that this is a fair valuation of the goods which are unsold
1My principals undertake that 1they will deliver to the bank mentioned below the foreign exchangerupee proceeds resulting from the export of these goods or before    It is not denied that the respondents before exporting the goods in question had furnished declaration in the prescribed forms
Therein they had declared that the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
It is also not denied that they had furnished to the appropriate authorities the prescribed evidence
The case against them as mentioned earlier is that they had under invoiced the goods and failed to repatriate a portion of the foreign exchange earned by them
It is also alleged that they gave incorrect information in their declarations
If these allegations are correct which we have to assume to be correct for the purpose of this case then it is obvious that the declarations given by the respondents do not comply with the requirements of rule 5
Section 22 of the Act provides that no person when making an application or declaration to any authority or person for any purpose under the Act shall give any information or make any statement which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or not true in any material particular
Section 23 prescribes that if any person contravenes the provisions of section 12 or of any rule direction or order made thereunder he shall a be liable to such penalty not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange in respect of which the contravention has taken place or five thousand rupees whichever is more as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement in the manner provided in the Act or b upon conviction by a court be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both
In view of these provisions it was not disputed before us that if the information given by the respondents in the aforementioned declarations was false to the knowledge of those who made those declarations or if they had reasonable cause to believe that it was false or not true in any 749 material particular then they are liable to be dealt with under section 23
Sub section 2 of section 12 provides that where any export of goods has been made to which a notification under sub section
1 applies no person entitled to sell or procure the sale of the said goods shall except with the permission of the Reserve Bank do or refrain from doing anything or take or refrain from taking any action which_ has the effect of securing that b payment for the goods is made otherwise than in the prescribed manner or does not represent the full amount payable by the foreign buyer in respect of the goods subject to such deductions if any as may be allowed by the Reserve Bank or is delayed to such extent as aforesaid   The contravention of the above provisions is punishable under section 23
Hence the respondents failure to repatriate any part of the foreign exchange earned by them by the sale of the manganese ore exported can be penalised by imposing on them a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange in respect of which the contravention had taken place or Rs 5000 whichever is more as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement in the manner provided in the Act
Hence it is open to the Director of Enforcement to levy on such of the respondents as have contravened section 122 panelist not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange not repatriated which in the present case can be about nine crores of rupees
They may also be punished under section 231b
This position is conceded by the Counsel appearing for the appellants
But it is urged on behalf of the appellants that for the offences committed by the respondents they are not only liable to be punished under section 23 but also under section 23A
The Appellate Bench of the Madras High Court negatived that contention
Section 23A as it stood at the relevant time provided that without prejudice to the provisions of section 23 or any other provision contained in this Act the restrictions imposed by   sub section
1 of section 12 shall be deemed to have been imposed Under section 19 of the and all provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly except that section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word shall  therein the word may were substituted the allegations mentioned in the show cause notices come with the scope of section 23A then it necessarily follows that they will Sup
CI69 15 750 be governed by the provisions of section 19 and section 1678 of the 
Section 19 of the Sea Customs
Act provides that the Central Government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette prohibit or restrict the bringing or taking by sea or by land goods of any specified description into or out of India across any customs frontiers as defined by the Central Government This section is similar to section 121 of the Act
Section 1678 provides for punishments for offences under that Act
That section to the extent material for our present purpose reads The offences mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable to the extent mentioned in the third column of the same with reference to such offences respectively Offences Sections of Penalties this Act to which offen ce has refe rence 8
If any goods the importation 18 and Such goods shall be liable or exportation of which is for 19 to confiscation and the time being prohibited or restricted by or under Chapter any person concerned in any IV of this Act be imported into such offence shall be liable or exported from India contrary to a penalty not exceeding to such prohibition or restriction three times the value of the or goods or not exceeding one thousand rupees
if any attempt be made so to import or export any such goods or if any such goods be found in any package produced to any officer of Customs as containing no such goods or if any such goods or any dutiable goods be found either before or after land or shipment to have been concealed in any manner on board of any vessel within the limits of any port in India or if any goods the exportation of which is prohibited or restricted as aforesaid be brought to any wharf in order to be put on board of any vessel for exportation contrary to such prohibition or restriction
If an offence falls under section 23A the fact that the said offence is also punishable under section 23 is immaterial
The provisions of 751 section 23A are without prejudice to the provisions of section 23
The mere fact that the offences alleged against the respondents are punishable under section 23 would not exclude the application of section 23A
Therefore all that we have to see is whether those offences fall within the ambit of section 23A
If they do then the impugned show cause notices must be held to be valid
If they do not then no proceedings can be taken on the basis of those notices
Before a case can be held to fall within the scope of section 23A it must be shown that there has been a contravention of the restrictions imposed by section 121
Therefore we have to find out what those restrictions are  The only restriction placed by section 121 read with the Central Government Notification dated August 4 1947 is that no one should export any goods from this country without furnish the declaration mentioned in section 121
Admittedly the stipulated declarations in the prescribed forms have been furnished
The evidence specified have also been given
Therefore prima facie there was no contravention of section 121
What is said against the respondents is that the invoice price mentioned by them in the declarations did not represent the full export value hence the declarations given by them are invalid declarations which means that the concerned goods were exported without furnishing the declarations required by section 121
It is not possible to accept this argument
The declarations given to satisfy the requirements of section 121 though they do not correctly furnish all the information asked for in the form
Such declarations cannot be considered as non est
The information called for in the prescribed form cannot be considered as restrictions imposed by section 121
They are merely informations called for the proper exercise of the powers under the Act
Many of them do not relate to the restrictions imposed by section 121
Neither section 121 nor any other provision in the Act empower the rule making authority to add to the restrictions imposed by section 121
For finding out the restrictions imposed by section 121we have only to look to that section
The requirement of that section is satisfied if the stipulated declaration supported by the evidence prescribed or specified is furnished
The contravention complained of in this case is really the contravention of section 122 and Rule 5
The former is punishable under section 23 and the latter under section 23 read with section 22
The declaration required by section 121 is only to the effect that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
This is as it should be because this section governs both the goods sold to the foreign buyers as well as to those sent on consignment basis
So far as the  goods sold to 752 the foreign buy are concerned it is generally possible for the exporter to know the exact export value but that would not be the position when the goods are sent on consignment basis
In the case of goods sent on consignment basis the exporter can give only an estimated value
The main purpose of section 121 is to get a declaration from the exporter that he has either brought or will bring back the amount representing the full export value of the goods exported
There are other provisions in the Act to deal with other situations
We shall presently refer to them
If we are to hold that every declaration which does not state accurately the full export value of the goods exported is a contravention of the restrictions imposed by section 121 then all exports on consignment basis must be held to contravene the restrictions imposed by section 121
Admittedly section 121 governs every type of export
Again it is hard to believe that the legislature intended that any minor mistake in giving the full export value should be penalised in the magnet provided in section 23A
The wording of section 121 does not support such a conclusion
Such a conclusion does not accord with the purpose of section 121
It is true that the regulations contained in the Act are enacted in the economic and financial interest of this country
The contravention of those regulations which we were told are widespread are affecting vital economic interest of this country
Therefore the rigorous and sanctity of those regulations should be maintained but at the same time it should not be forgotten that section 121 is a penal section
The true rule of construction of a section like section 121 is if we may say so with respect as mentioned by Plowman J in Re HPC Productions Ltd1 Therein the learned Judge observed I approach the question of the construction of the Exchange Control Act in the light of the principles stated by Upjohn J in London and Country Commercial Properties Investment vs Attorney General2 to which Mr Bagnall referred
In that case the court was concerned with the construction of the Borrowing Control and Guarantees Act 1946 and the Control of Borrowing Order 1947
Upjohn J said The first question I have to consider is what are the principles of construction which I must adopt in construing this Act and this order 
I have to bear in mind that this is a penal statute
It indeed I suppose represents the high water mark of the Parliamentary invasion of the traditional rights of the subjects of this realm
 Then he went on 1 1962 Ch
Dn 466 at 473 2  753 to explain why that was so and continued in those circumstances what are the canons of construction to be adopted  I do not propose to refer to the authorities at length
I think that the proper approach to the construction of such a statute as this is that I must construe it as I would any other instrument that is to say I must look at all the surrounding circumstances I must look at the mischief intended to be remedied I must above all give effect to the words that have been used in the section
That is plain from the decision in Dyke vs Elliot1 see in particular the judgment of James LJ but if on construing the relevant sections of the Act and the order there appears any reasonable doubt or ambiguity then being a penal statute I must apply the principles laid down succinctly by Lord Esher in Tuck and sons vs Prester
 2  In London and North Eastern Rly
Co vs Berriman3 Lord Macmillan observed Where penalties for infringement are imposed it is not legitimate to stretch the language of a rule however beneficent its intention beyond the fair and ordinary meaning of its language This Court in Tolaram Relumal and anr
vs State of Bombay4 speaking through Mahajan CJ observed It is not competent to the Court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the Legislature in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature Hereinbefore we have examined the language of section 121 and its purpose
We have also referred to the provisions which provide for the punishment of the contravention complained of in these cases
Those provisions are adequate to meet the situation
In our opinion the language of section 121 does not permit the acceptance of the interpretation placed on it by the appellants nor are we able to come to the conclusion that the legislature intended that the offences complained of in these proceedings should be made punishable under section 23A
If the interpretation sought to be placed by the appellants on section 121 is accepted it may result in unnecessary hardship in numerous cases
There are two facets in every export one relating to the goods exported and the other relating to the foreign exchange earned as a result of the export
Broadly speaking the former aspect is dealt with by the customs authorities and the latter either by the 1 1872  191
2 3 at 295
4  at p 164
754 Reserve Bank or by the Director of Enforcement
The price of the goods exported has to be mentioned in the invoice
But the Reserve Bank has power to examine whether the price mentioned in the invoice is correct
Section 125 provides that where in relation to any goods exported the value as stated in the invoice is less than the amount which in the opinion of the Reserve Bank represents the full export value of those goods the Reserve Bank may issue an order requiring the person holding the shipping documents to retain possession thereof until such time as the exporter of the goods has made arrangements for the Reserve Bank or a person authorised by the Reserve Bank to receive on behalf of the exporter payment in the prescribed manner of an amount which represents in the opinion of the Reserve Bank the full export value of the goods
Sub Section 6 of section 12 says that for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of that section and any orders or directions made thereunder the Reserve Bank may require any person making any export of goods to which a notification under sub section
1 applies to exhibit contracts with his foreign buyer or other evidence to show that the full amount payable by the said buyer in respect of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner
These provisions go to indicate that so far as the value of the goods exported is concerned the matter is left primarily in the hands of the Reserve Bank and the Customs authorities are not burdened with that work
This aspect becomes relevant in ascertaining the true scope of section 121
If we bear in mind the scheme of the Act it is clear that so far as the Customs authorities are concerned all that they have to see is that no goods are exported without furnishing the declaration prescribed under section 121
Once that stage is passed the rest of the matter is left in the hands of the Reserve Bank and the Director of Enforcement
In view of our above conclusion it is unnecessary for us to examine the other contention advanced on behalf of the parties
In the result these appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs
One hearing fee
ORDER In accordance with the opinion of the majority these appeals are dismissed with costs
One hearing fee


Summary:
By a notification dated August 4 1947 issued under section 121 of the  Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act 1947 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation 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 amount representing the full export value of the goods has been paid or would be paid within the prescribed period
In 1957 the respondents shipped goods after furnishing to the prescribed authority namely the Collector of Customs a declaration in the statutory form prescribed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules and the Collector of Customs passed the goods for shipment
In 1965 the Dy
Collector of Customs issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why a penalty under section 1678 of the  should not be imposed on the basis that the respondents under valued the goods deliberately that they gave in the prescribed form false particulars supported by false evidence that there was a failure to repatriate large amounts of foreign exchange contrary to the requirements of section 122 and r 5 that section 121 of the Foreign Exchange 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 sufficient compliance with the provisions that under the circumstances by virtue of section 23 A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act the exportation constituted an offence
under section 1678 of the 
the respondents thereupon
filed a writ petition contending that the declaration to the Collector of Customs was sufficient compliance with the statutory provisions and that the Collector having passed the consignments for shipment had no further jurisdiction to take proceedings against them
A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petitions but on appeal the Divisional Bench allowed the petitions
In appeal to this Court
HELD Per Bachawat and Hegde JJ
On the facts set out in the show cause notice the respondents could not be held to have contravened section 121
1 The regulations contained in the Act are enacted in the economic and financial interest of the country
Therefore the rigour and sanctity of the regulations should be maintained but at the same time it should not be forgotten that section 121 is a penal section and in interpreting it
it is not competent to the Court to stretch its language in order to carry out the intention of the  Legislature
752 E 728 Tolaram Rehumal vs State of Bombay   164 followed Re
HPC Production Ltd 1962 Ch
Dn 466 473 red London  North Eastern Ry
Co vs Beriman  295 applied
2 Neither section 121 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 section 121 read with the notification dated August 4 1947 is that no one should export any goods from this country without furnishing the declaration mentioned in s121
The items of information called for in the prescribed form cannot be considered as restrictions imposed by section 121
They are merely information called for the proper exercise of the powers under the Act
In fact many of them do not relate to the restrictions imposed if the section
751 C F 3 So far as goods sold to the foreign buyer are concerned it is possible for the exporter to know the exact export value but that would not be the position when the goods are sent on consignment basis and in such a case the exporter can give only an estimated value
If every declaration which does not state accurately the full export value of the goods exported is held to be a contravention of section 121 then all exports on consignment basis must be held to contravene the restriction imposed by section 121 but the Legislature could not have intended that minor mistakes in giving the full export value should be punished under section 23A
Therefore the declarations given in the present case do satisfy the requirements of section 121 though they did not correctly furnish all the information asked for in the form and hence there was no contravention of the section
751 H 752 D 4 The main purpose of section 121 is to get a declaration from the exporter that he has either brought or will bring back the amount representing the full export value of the goods
The scheme of the Act is that so far as customs authorities are concerned all that they have to see is that no goods are exported without furnishing the declaration prescribed under section 121
Once that stage is passed the rest of the matter is left in the hands of the Reserve Bank and the Director of Enforcement under sections 125 and 6
752 B 754 F 5 Before a case can be held to fall within the scope of sections 23A and 1678 of the  could be invoked it must be shown that there has been a contravention of the restrictions imposed by section 121 but the language of section 121 does not permit the interpretation that the Legislature intended that the offences complained in these proceedings should be punishable under section 23A The contravention complained of in this case are really contraventions of section 122 and r 5 and they are punishable the former under section 23 and the latter
under sections 22 and 23
751 B C G Per Sikri J dissenting
On the facts alleged by the Customs authorities no case for the issue of a writ to the authorities had been made out
1 The Act was enacted in the interests of national economy
Since a deliberate large
scale contravention of its provisions would have serious effects it should be construed so as to make it workable
No subject can insist on an interpretation which will have the effect of sabotaging the national economy
739 H 740 A 729 2 As section 121 itself does not impose any restrictions and contemplates rules being made on a evidence which is to support declaration b authority to which the declaration is to be furnished and c the manner of payment the restrictions imposed by rules which are deferrable to the section must be treated as restrictions imposed by the section
740 H Wellingdale vs Norris 1909 1 KB 57 64 Wicks vs Director of Public Prosecution 1947 1 All ER 205 206 R vs Wicks  53t and Rathbone vs Bumlock  applied
Dr Indramani Payarelal Gupta vs WR Nathu   737 distinguished
USv
George R Eaton  and Singer vs US 89 LEd258 290
referred to
3 Even in a case where the amount has not been received there must be declaration of some actual figure which according to the declaration represents the full export value  It may be an estimate if the goods have not been sold before the export but a figure must be indicated
The requirement of supporting evidence and r 52ii requiring the statement of the invoice value in the declaration indicate that an actual figure has to be mentioned
SeCtion 121 and the notification impose a conditional prohibition an on exporter which he can lift by a unilateral declaration
When such a power is conferred on an exporter by a statute good faith on his part must be implied and is a condition prerequisite
Section 22 provides that the declare shall not give any information which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false or not true Clerical mistakes and mistakes made bona fide even in respect of material particulars would not come within the mischief of the section
but a deliberate falsehood and deliberate evasion of the provisions of the section would be a contravention of section 121 for otherwise the ambit of the section read with section 23A would be narrowed to the point of extinction
An exporter and persons concerned in the export could with impunity give a deliberately false declaration but in apparent compliance with section 121 and deprive this country of foreign exchange
There is no distinction between an exporter and the persons concerned in the export when no declaration under section 121 is given at all and in a case where the exporter gives a deliberately false declaration for the purpose of the applicability of section 1678 of the 
1744 D 745 D 4 Since the same contravention may attract penalties under the as well as the Foreign Exchange Act it will be incongruous to hold that the restrictions imposed by section 121 are different for the two acts
740 F G The Mayor of Portsmouth vs Charles Smith 10 AC 364 371 applied
5 Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Act deems the restrictions imposed under section 121 to have been imposed under s 19 of the  without prejudice to the provisions in section 23 dealing with penalty and procedure for contravention of the provisions of section 12 or any rule or direction or order made thereunder of Foreign Exchange Act and therefore offenders who violate those restrictions could be proceed with both under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act as well as the 
It may be that action can be taken against an exporter under other sections of the Foreign Exchange ReguLation Act 730 or the  but that does not prevent action under section 23A read with section 121 with the aid of customs authorities both against exporters and persons concerned in the prohibited export
745 E H