Judgment :- P. SHANMUGAM, J. The appealpreferred by the appellant under Section52(2) oftheForeignExchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as'theAct') before theChairman, Foreign ExchangeRegulation Appellate Board.The Boardhas dismissedthe appeal, against the order of the Additional Director ofEnforcement, but modified thepenaltyimposed, anddirected theappellant to pay a sum of Rs. 35, 000/- by way ofpenalty for contravention of Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) ofthe Act. 2.The brief facts areasfollows:-The appellant hasadmittedly.exported readymade garments to M/s.Universal EnterprisesLtd., Male in Septemberto November, 1980 representing to the valueofRs.2, 63, 654.50. Since thesaid amount inForeign Exchangehasnot been repatriated, a showcause noticewasissued to theappellantby the SpecialDirector ofEnforcement and after considering the reply filedby the appellant dated6-4-1984 the Additional Director ofEnforcement passed an order dated 14-6-1985 imposing thepenalty ofRs. 50, 000/- on thefirm andadditional amount atRs. 15, 000/-ontheManaging Partner. An appealwas preferredbefore the ForeignExchange Regulation AppellateBoard. The Appellate Board by the impugned order modified the penalty and confirmed thecontravention, theappeal is against this order. 3.According to thelearned counsel forthe appellant the Boardhaving found that theappellant had taken all necessary effortsto secure therealisation of the amount in question andbona fidesin thematterought not to haveimposedthe penalty. However, according to the learned counsel the penalty isexcessive and disproportionate to the alleged contravention. 4.Mr. Kumar, learnedAdditional Central Government Standing Counsel appearingon behalfoftherespondent submit that Section 54 of the Act enables theHigh Court to interfere, with thedecisionofthe appellateBoardonlyon aquestion of lawand not on thefindings ofthefact.Hefurther submits that Rule 8 of the ForeignExchangeRegulationRules, 1974(hereinafter referred to as 'theRule')provides that theamount representing thefull export value of thegoodsexported shall berealisedandbepaid to the authorised dealer on the duedate for paymentor withinsixmonthsfrom the date of shipment of the goods whicheveris earlier.The Rule also providesfor an exception by wayof an orderbefore theReserve Bank of Indiafor asufficient reasonable cause beingshown to extend the said period. In this casetheappellanthaving not realised the amount andadmittedlynot soughtforextension andobtain extension by Reserve Bank ofIndia hascommittedcontravention of Sections 18(2)and 13(3) of theAct. 5.According to him, thereis no question ofbona fidesor lack ofwilfulnessin thecase of contravention since the contravention iscompleteon thefactsofnon-realisation within thetime provided or extension of time granted. In this casetheappellanthaving not realised the amount andadmittedlynot soughtforextension andobtain extension by Reserve Bank ofIndia hascommittedcontravention of Sections 18(2)and 13(3) of theAct. 5.According to him, thereis no question ofbona fidesor lack ofwilfulnessin thecase of contravention since the contravention iscompleteon thefactsofnon-realisation within thetime provided or extension of time granted. 6.After hearing the learned counsel oneitharside, we findfromthe orderofthe Appellate Board that while confirming the contravention have observed as follows:- "Therefore, notwithstanding variousother effortsmade by theappellant insecuring realisation of the export value andtheir completebona fidein the matter, the appellant No.1 mustbe held liable for contravention of Section 18(2) read with 18(3) of the Act andthe contravention havingbeen restricted toRs. 1, 88, 994.50 and the penalty wasdirected to bereducedproportionately and was fixed atRs. 35, 000/- for the said contravention." Therefore, on the admitted facts ofnon-realisation of theForeign Exchangethough there wasa belatedattempt on the part oftheappellant by filingthe suit after the notice issued by the Special Directorof Enforcement the contravention is complete by non-securingthe ForeignExchange. 7.Section 18(3) saysthatwhere in relation toany goods to which a notificationunder clause (a)ofsub-section(1)appliestheprescribedperiod has expiredandpaymenttherefor has not been made as aforesaid, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary isproved by the parson who hassold or is entitled to sellthe goods or to procure the sale thereof, that suchpersonhasnot taken all reasonablesteps to receive or recover thepayment for thegoodsas aforesaid and heshall accordinglybe presumed to have contravenedtheprovisions ofsub-section(2).The fact that theappellant had exported the goods some timein September, 1980 and that withinsix months he had not repatriated theamounttowardsthe valueofthegoods.Therewasnoextensionsought for andobtained by the appellant. Therefore, the payment has not beenmadethere is a legal presumptionunless contrary proofthat he had not takenreasonablesteps to receiveor recovertheamountandthathehas contravenedtheprovisions ofsub-section18(2)of the Act.Thestep that is saidto have been takenby way offilingthe suit forrecovery ofmoney after thenotice issued by theSpecial Director ofEnforcementwill notmitigate the contravention alleged againsttheappellant. 8.The Supreme Court inDirector of Enforcementv.M/s. MCTMCorporation Pvt.Ltd. dealingwith theForeignExchange Regulation Act held thatmensreais not an essential ingredient for holding adelinquent liableto pay penalty under Section 23(1)(a) of theAct. The Supreme Court hasalsoheld that thepenaltyis imposed for breach of civil obligation and notassentence.In this casetheappellant who is obliged torepatriate theForeignExchangefor theexport has breached the civil obligation and the provisions. Sections18(2) and18(3) of the Actnowhere referstomens rea. In other words oncethefactum of contravention found the offence is complete. The Supreme Court hasalsoheld that thepenaltyis imposed for breach of civil obligation and notassentence.In this casetheappellant who is obliged torepatriate theForeignExchangefor theexport has breached the civil obligation and the provisions. Sections18(2) and18(3) of the Actnowhere referstomens rea. In other words oncethefactum of contravention found the offence is complete. Thesaidview of theHon'bleSupreme Court was followed by our High CourtinUnion of Indiav.M/s. S.K. Senjan Chettiar Sons 1996 (2) ILR(Mad) 1569 ] dealing with Section 18(2) of the Act thatmens reais not at all required and that ifitis proved thatany actoromission had taken place, there is violation ofthe concernedaction justifyingthe penalty. The judgment referred bythecounsel forthe appellant of the Supreme Court inAkbarBadrudinJiwaniv.CollectorofCustoms, Bombay dealt withthe Import (Control) Order, wharebyin termsof the section "wilful omission" was required.Theywere dealingwithSections 125 and 112 oftheCustoms Act, 1962, whichrequires establishment ofmens rea, such is not the case in relation to Sections18(2) and 18(3)of the Act.Hencethe said judgment will notapply to the contravention under theForeign ExchangeRegulation Act. 9.The question whether the penalty isexcessive or not isnot a matter that canbe considered by this Court in appealunderSection 54sinceno question oflaw is involved. The quantum of penalty awarded cannot be held to be arbitrary. For all these reasons, no grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the appellate board. The appeal is dismissed.