Judgment :- This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to the as 'the Act') is against the order dated 5-11-1984 of the Appellate Board under the said Act, modifying the order dated 9-8-1982 of the first Authority viz., the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate Madras 6 2. There were three contraventions under the Act, one under Section 9(1)(b), another under Section 9(1)(d) and yet another under Section 9(1)(e) of the Act. But even according to learned Counsel for the appellant, in this appeal we are concerned only with the contravention under Section 9(1)(b) by the respondent. Regarding the same, the first Authority levied penalty of Rs. 5, 000/- under Section 50 of the Act and also confiscated under Section 63 of the Act, the sum of Rs. 50, 000/- involved in the contravention, which was actually seized on 15-2-1982. But, the abovesaid modification made by the Appellate Board in the appeal preferred before it by the respondent is that while it increased the abovesaid penalty from Rs. 5, 000/- to Rs. 20, 000/- adopting the procedure prescribed under Section 52(5) of the Act, it set aside the order of the abovesaid confiscation made by the first Authority. Hence this appeal 3. The only argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Appellate Board should not have set aside the abovesaid confiscation order of the first Authority, but should have confirmed the said order of confiscation, particularly when the Appellate Board has held, while dealing with the question relating to penalty, it observed that the penalty of Rs. 5, 000/- imposed by the first Authority was very much on the low side in view of the surreptitious manner in which a heavy amount was being brought into the country without resorting to the banking channel. "In this connection, he relies on Rangaswamy v. The Deputy Director, 1987 11 ECC 242 (Madras) and Union of India v. Vijay Chand. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the discretion exercised by the Appellate Board in setting aside the confiscation, while increasing, the penalty to Rs. 20, 000/- does not call for interference in this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. He also submits that the abovesaid decisions will not have any bearing on the present case 5. 20, 000/- does not call for interference in this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. He also submits that the abovesaid decisions will not have any bearing on the present case 5. We have considered the rival submissions According to Section 9(1)(b) on person in or resident in India shall" * receive otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India ". According to Section 50 of the Act, inter alia, if any person contravenes Section 9(1)(b)," * he shall be liable to such penalty not exceeding five times the amount or value involved in any such contravention or five thousand rupees, whichever is more ..... Section 51 of the Act says that for purpose of adjudging under Section 50, the Adjudicating officer shall hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and if on such enquiry he is satisfied that the person concerned has committed the contravention, he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit. According to Section 63 of the Act, inter alia, the Adjudicating officer first Authority herein, adjudging any contravention under Section 51, "May if he thinks fit" in addition to any penalty, direct that any currency in respect of which the contravention has taken place, shall be confiscated 6. In the present case, the above referred to seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 50, 000/- was made on 15-2-1982 from the residential premises of the respondent. On the same date, the incriminating statement was given by the respondent. According to it, as per instructions from his father-in-law at Malaysia, he received the abovesaid sum of Rs. 50, 000/-. As against this admission learned counsel for the respondent no doubt points out that the respondent retracted from the said admission within two days thereafter, that is on 17-2-1982 itself. But it must be noted, as found by the Adjudicating Officer, that on 13-4-1982, the respondent has sent a letter, in which he said that the abovesaid retraction by telegram was not his own telegram, but it is the telegram given by his advocate without his instructions and knowledge. Further on 19-4-1982 also, pursuant to the summons issued on 22-3-1982, the respondent retracted the retracted statement and confirmed his original statement dated 15-2-1982. Further on 19-4-1982 also, pursuant to the summons issued on 22-3-1982, the respondent retracted the retracted statement and confirmed his original statement dated 15-2-1982. No doubt, learned counsel for the respondent sought to argue that subsequently in the reply dated 7-5-1982 to the show cause notice issued on 23-4-1982, the respondent repudiated his original incriminating statement given on 15-2-1982. The said counsel sought to contend that the statement made on 13-4-1982 and 19-4-1982 were given only due to threat and force exercise by the department. But on perusing the said reply on 7-5-1982, we find that there is no such allegation in the said reply 7. Taking all these into account, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Appellate Board should not have set aside the confiscation. As already stated, in this connection he relies on 1987 11 ECC 242 Madras (supra). The relevant passage in the said judgment is as follows :- Once it is established that by way of compensatory payment, the sum of Rs. 30, 000/- had been received by the appellant, it having been done in contravention of the provisions of the Act and which had prevented the Government from getting the foreign exchange under the said transaction, the entire amount being confiscated cannot be characterised as unjust. If the said amount, admittedly received unauthorisedly, is allowed to be retained in full or a portion of it is allowed to be used by appellant, it would result in only a nominal penalty being paid and the balance utilised in spite of the illegality committed by the appellant. It is to avoid such contravention, being indulged, in provision having been made for confiscation, and in a matter of this nature, by taking into account factors which are now pleaded, if the appellant is allowed to retain any portion, it would result in the Court permitting him to retain illegally received amount. This would be against the intention of the Act. For this reason, this Court considers that the authorities, bearing in mind the circumstances under which the amount had been received by the appellant, and as it had resulted in the contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act, had no chosen to permit the appellant to retain any portion of the said amount." 8. For this reason, this Court considers that the authorities, bearing in mind the circumstances under which the amount had been received by the appellant, and as it had resulted in the contravention of Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act, had no chosen to permit the appellant to retain any portion of the said amount." 8. Thus, in the abovesaid judgment, this Court refused in interfere under Section 54 of the Act where only error of law can be urged, with the concerrent order of the authorities, below confiscating the amount of Rs. 30, 000/- in the contravention. Thus, the said case is a reverse case, compared with the present one. Further, in the abovesaid case, while confiscation order was concurrent, penalty of Rs. 5000/- levied by the first authority was reduced by the Appellate Board to Rs. 3, 000/-. In the present case, the penalty has been actually substantially increased by the Appellate Board from Rs. 5, 000/- to Rs. 20, 000/-. In the light of the abovesaid features, taking an over all view, we do not think that the present case warrants may interference by this Court with the discretion exercised by the Appellate Board in this regard 9. No doubt, while dealing with the levy of penalty in paragraph 3 of the order of the Appellate Board, the Board has held that the respondent has surreptitiously brought into the country a heavy amount without resorting to the banking channel. On that ground it increased the penalty to Rs. 20, 000/- while dealing with the confiscation in question in paragraph 4 of its order, it however, set aside the confiscation of Rs. 50, 000/-. This setting aside could be considered as only because of the substantial increase of the penalty originally levied. No doubt, the Appellate Board also refers to certain earlier orders of the Board in support its setting aside order. But it does not state what actually is the content of the said orders, though it says that applying the ratio of these orders, there appears no justification of confiscation, in a case such as the present one, where the respondent herein is able to identify the source from which he received the amount. None of the two rival counsel appearing before me also is able to produce a copy of the said earlier orders of the Board, relied on in the impugned appellate order. None of the two rival counsel appearing before me also is able to produce a copy of the said earlier orders of the Board, relied on in the impugned appellate order. Anyway, as we have already stated, the setting aside of the confiscation was presumably because of the substantial increase in the penalty, ordered by the Appellate Board 10. No doubt, in the abovesaid extracted observation in 1987 11 ECC 242 (supra) it is stated that if the amount involved in the contravention is allowed to be retained, it would result in only a "nominal" penalty being paid and the balance utilised in respect of the illegality committed and that it is to avoid such contravention being indulged in provision has been made for confiscation. But in the present case, it cannot be said that the penalty, imposed by the Appellate Board is a nominal one. But as already mentioned, it is a substantial increase from what is levied by the first authority. In the present circumstances, we do not think that the present case involves, any interference by us under S. 54 of the Act. 11. 1977 (47) CC 674, 1977 CrLR(SC) 421, 1977 (2) SCC 405 , 1977 SCC(Cr) 353, 1977 (2) SCR 952 , 1977 UJ 240 , 1977 CrLR 421, 1977 (64) AIR(SC) 1302, 1977 (83) CRLJ 812, 1977 SCC(Cri) 353 : 1977 (47) CC 674, 1977 CrLR(SC) 421, 1977 (2) SCC 405 , 1977 SCC(Cr) 353, 1977 (2) SCR 952 , 1977 UJ 240 , 1977 CrLR 421, 1977 (64) AIR(SC) 1302, 1977 (83) CRLJ 812, 1977 SCC(Cri) 353 (supra) also will not support the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. In that the decision of the Supreme Court while the High Court held that the Director of Enforcement had no competence to order the confiscation of the Indian currency in question and quashed the impugned order, the Supreme Court mainly held that the High Court's finding that the abovesaid Director had no competence to order the confiscation, was not correct and that was why the Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in quashing the order of confiscation. In other words, the question in the said Supreme Court case mainly turned on the competency or jurisdiction of the Director of Enforcement to order confiscation on the facts of the said case. In other words, the question in the said Supreme Court case mainly turned on the competency or jurisdiction of the Director of Enforcement to order confiscation on the facts of the said case. In the present case the question of competency or jurisdiction of the Appellate Board in setting aside the confiscation, does not arise. But the only argument is that the Appellate Board was not justified on facts in setting aside the confiscation. Viewed in this light the said Supreme Court decision has no application to the present case 12. Accordingly we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Appellate Board within the four corners of S. 54 of the Act. The civil miscellaneous appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, of the case, there will be no order as to costs.