Export realisation presumption under foreign exchange law remained unrebutted where no RBI extension or recovery steps were shown.

Natural justice objections failed because the appellants knew of the adjudication, appeared before the authority, admitted no reply had been filed, and were given time to produce a bank certificate and detailed response. On the export realisation issue, section 18(2) required full recovery of export proceeds and section 18(3) raised a presumption of contravention when payment was not received within the prescribed period unless reasonable recovery steps were shown. The appellants accounted for receipt of 2,400, but produced no RBI extension, waiver, or adequate explanation for the unpaid balance. The statutory presumption remained unrebutted, and the contravention finding and penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication proceedings were vitiated for want of fair opportunity and non-service of a proper show cause notice; (ii) Whether the appellants had contravened the obligation to realize export proceeds and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication proceedings were vitiated for want of fair opportunity and non-service of a proper show cause notice.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellants were aware of the proceedings, appeared before the Adjudicating Authority, admitted that no reply had been filed, and were given time to produce the bank certificate and a detailed reply. The authority also considered the documentary material furnished by the appellants regarding receipt of part of the export proceeds. On these facts, the plea that no proper opportunity was afforded could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The objection based on want of notice and denial of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had contravened the obligation to realize export proceeds and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: Section 18(2) required the exporter to secure realization of the full export value, and section 18(3) raised a presumption of contravention where payment was not received within the prescribed period unless reasonable steps to recover the amount were proved. The appellants established receipt of 2,400, which was excluded, but they produced no material showing RBI extension or waiver, nor any sufficient explanation for non-realization of the balance. The presumption under section 18(3) therefore remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the penalties imposed were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and the adjudication order was sustained, with the appellants directed to pay the penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: In export realization , failure to show RBI extension or other material demonstrating reasonable steps to recover the proceeds leaves the statutory presumption of contravention under section 18(3) unrebutted.

---