of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973. Before the appellate tribunal the advocate for the Appellant did not contest the appeal on merits, but only requested that a lenient view should be taken on the ground that this was only a single transaction. The appellate tribunal, having considered the fact that a single transaction has been alleged against the Appellant who was a custodian of the money which was returned back to the original owner, reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.1,50,000/-. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Sudershan Boury v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi1 in support of the proposition that the jurisdiction to impose a penalty has to be exercised judiciously. There can be no dispute about this principle of law. Significantly, the Appellant having accepted the finding against him, by not contesting the appeal on merits before the Tribunal and having sought only a lenient view, all the facts and circumstances of the case were duly taken into account by the appellate tribunal in reducing the penalty from Rs.2 lacs to Rs. 1,50,000/-. So construed, no substantial question of law arises. The Appeal is dismissed.
