Rebuttable presumption in export proceeds cases applies when reasonable recovery steps are proved and contravention is not made out.

Non-realisation of export proceeds does not automatically establish contravention where the statutory presumption is rebuttable. The appellant was shown to have made repeated efforts to recover payment through correspondence with buyers, assistance from the authorised dealer and the Indian High Commission, continued action after buyer liquidation, and an RBI write-off request when recovery became unlikely. On that evidence, the presumption was rebutted and no contravention for failure to realise export proceeds was made out; the penalty could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant rebutted the presumption under section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by showing that all reasonable steps were taken to realise the export proceeds, so as to avoid liability for contravention under section 18(2).

Analysis: Non-realisation of export proceeds does not by itself establish contravention where the statutory presumption is rebuttable. The material on record showed repeated correspondence with buyers, efforts to recover payment through the authorised dealer and the Indian High Commission, steps taken even after liquidation of buyer companies, and an application to the RBI for write-off when recovery had become unlikely. The evidence was sufficient to show that the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to receive or recover payment, and the adjudicating authority failed to properly appreciate this evidence.

Conclusion: The statutory presumption under section 18(3) stood rebutted and no contravention under section 18(2) was made out; the finding and penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the penalty order was set aside on the footing that the appellant had discharged the burden of showing reasonable efforts to realise the export proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi: A person charged with non-realisation of export proceeds avoids contravention under section 18(2) if he rebuts the presumption under section 18(3) by proving that all reasonable steps to recover payment were taken.

---