The Assistant Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Madras vs M.M. Mohd. Meera Sahib

Somasundaram, J.—Under S. 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, when a party exports goods, he should give a true declaration of the value of the property, to enable the authorities to keep track of the repatriation value of the goods. The respondent herein filed a false-declaration, that is, he deliberately under-valued the goods exported, the object being to get the difference between the actual valuation and the declared valuation through unauthorised channels and thereby deprive the Government of India of the foreign exchange. That he did this, he admitted when questioned by the court. The undervaluation in this case is about Rs. 15,000. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 250. The Assistant Director of Enforcement has filed this revision for enhancement of the sentence.

The punishment provided for under Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act is imprisonment for two years, or fine, or both. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 23 states that not withstanding anything contained in Sec. 32 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Act V of 1898), it shall be lawful for any Magistrate of the First Class, specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or for any Presidency Magistrate, to pass a sentence of fine exceeding two thousand rupee on any person convicted of an offence punishable under this Section.

The offence against export and import restrictions of customs are of the species of ''economic'' crimes, which must be curbed effectively. The laws of this country impose restrictions on import of certain articles and prohibit import of certain others after due consideration of national policies, especially In view of its own foreign trade, currency and exchange position. To permit wholesale valuation of these restrictions and prohibitions would expose the national interest to avoidable risks. The violation in this case clearly demonstrates that the accused had acted for his own benefit. A serious view must, therefore, be taken for such offences, which show a distressingly growing tendency. Under-involving will have an impact on the economy of the country. The fine in such cases should have same proportion to the profits he has made or is likely to make in transaction.

In view of all these circumstances, I have to come to the conclusion that in this case the fine imposed on the accused by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate is not adequate and that it requires to be enhanced. Therefore, over and above the fine already imposed, I sentence the respondent accused to pay an additional fine of Rs. 550, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for five months. Time for payment two months.

With this enhancement in the sentence, the revision is dismissed.