Export proceeds repatriation presumption upheld where exporter failed to show timely, meaningful recovery steps.

Failure to realise and repatriate export proceeds attracted the statutory presumption under Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the exporter had to show timely, meaningful steps to recover payment. The record did not establish effective action within the prescribed period: the correspondence mainly concerned other entities, the claim before the U.S. bankruptcy attorney was made only after expiry of time, and no effective earlier approach to the Indian Embassy or RBI was shown. The presumption was therefore not rebutted, contravention under Section 18(2) was upheld, and the penalty was found not excessive or harsh.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of contravention for failure to realise and repatriate export proceeds and whether the penalty imposed required interference.

Analysis: Section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 prohibits conduct that delays or defeats receipt of export proceeds, and Section 18(3) raises a rebuttable presumption that the exporter did not take all reasonable steps to recover payment once the prescribed period expires without realisation. The record did not show that the appellants had taken timely, meaningful steps within the prescribed period; the correspondence relied upon largely related to other entities, and the claim before the U.S. bankruptcy attorney was lodged only after expiry of the relevant period. The appellants also failed to show any effective earlier approach to the Indian Embassy or the Reserve Bank of India, and the mere request for write-off did not discharge the burden when no write-off had been granted.

Conclusion: The appellants failed to rebut the presumption under Section 18(3), the finding of contravention under Section 18(2) was upheld, and the penalty was held not to be excessive or harsh.

---