1. These two writ petitions raise common questions, and so, could be disposed of by a common order. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 441 of 1966 is a firm called K. O. Krishnaswamy. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 443 of 1966 is another firm called Nagaraja Overseas Traders. Both these firms were proceeded against by the Director of Enforcement Directorate in respect of an accusation that they had contravened the provisions of S.12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Central Act VII of 1947). The Director, after setting out the relevant facts concerning that accusation, proceeded to state that the two firms had pleaded guilty to that accusation, and so, imposed a penalty in the following words : -
"Accepting their pleas, I find the first two firms, viz., M/s. K. O. Krishnaswamy and M/s. Nagaraja Overseas Traders and their respective partners guilty under S.12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and, in view of the magnitude of the amounts involved, and the poor realisation of the export proceeds, I impose on either of the firms, a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs each (Total Rs. 6 lakhs)."
Although the Director did find the partners also guilty of the offence with which they are charged, he did not impose any penalty on them individually.

2. We do not accede to the contention of Mr. Srinivasan that there is any obscurity in the language employed by the Director with respect to the question whether the penalty was imposed on both the petitioners or on only one of them. The word "either" occurring in the relevant part of the Director's order means, in our opinion, each, and, there can be no doubt about it.

3. We are asked in these writ petitions to quash the penalties so imposed on the firms.

4. The material facts which are not in dispute are these : The two firms sent 52 shipments of art silk fabrices, readymade garments, handicrafts and sari goods to Singapur and other places under declaration which they made as required by S.12(1) of the Act in which they stated the value of the goods sold. The finding of the Director was that the statements in those declarations concerning the value of the goods so exported were false, and that there was, what he described, over - invoicing with respect to those sales.

5. According to the declaration made by K. O. Krishnaswamy, the value of the goods exported by that firm through the 31 shipments with which we are concerned was Rs. 21,97,04662 while the finding of the Director in effect is that the price payable by the foreign buyer in Malasia for those goods was only Rs. 1,01,165,07. Similarly the declared value of the exported goods with respect to 22 shipments sent by Nagaraja Overseas Traders was Rupees 17,06,159.00, while their real value which was payable by the foreign buyer was Rs. 38,510.25. The director was of the opinion that under the provisions of the Act it was the duty of the two firms to repatriate the entire value of the goods stated in the declarations made by them under S. 12 (1) and that the repatriation of smaller sums of money amounted to a contravention of S.12(2) of the Act.

6. Mr. Srinivasan appearing for petitioners contended that, that view taken by the Director receives no support from the relevant statutory provision.

7. Now, the relevant part of S.12 reads :
"12(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, prohibit the taking or sending out by land, sea or air (hereafter 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 ent