Substantive exporter liability and bona fide efforts to realise export proceeds defeated foreign exchange contravention.

Liability for export-proceed realisation attached to the appellant company because it was the substantive exporter, having manufactured the jewellery and controlled the export transactions, while the nominated agency only supplied gold and facilitated the structure. However, contravention was not established where the record showed repeated follow-up with foreign buyers, requests for extension of time, and other bona fide efforts to realise the proceeds. The authorities had not properly appreciated that evidence of effort and partial realisation, so the penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed, with refund of deposited amounts according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant company was the real exporter and liable for realisation of the export proceeds under the foreign exchange law; (ii) whether the failure to realise the export proceeds constituted a contravention in view of the efforts made and the regulatory scheme for extension of time.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant company was the real exporter and liable for realisation of the export proceeds under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The export arrangement showed that the appellant company manufactured the jewellery, handled the export transactions in substance, and was the entity responsible for the export proceeds. The role of the nominated agency was confined to supplying gold and facilitating the export structure. The liability for realisation of the proceeds therefore attached to the appellant company, and the individual directors were not shown to be free from responsibility.

Conclusion: The appellant company was the de facto exporter and was liable in principle for realisation of the export proceeds.

Issue (ii): Whether the failure to realise the export proceeds constituted a contravention in view of the efforts made and the regulatory scheme for extension of time.

Analysis: Rule 8 required realisation within the prescribed period, but the Court held that where the foreign buyer defaults, the exporter's practical course is to seek extension from the Reserve Bank of India. The record contained correspondence showing repeated follow-up with buyers and requests for extension, and the adjudicating authority itself noted sincere efforts and substantial realisation in some cases. On that basis, the Court found no deliberate omission to realise the proceeds and held that the authorities had not properly appreciated the evidence of efforts made.

Conclusion: No contravention under Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) was established.

Final Conclusion: The penalties were set aside and the appeals were allowed, with refund of the deposited amounts in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for non-realisation of export proceeds, liability under foreign exchange law turns not merely on the formal export documentation but on the substantive role of the exporter, and contravention is not established where the evidence shows bona fide and continuous efforts to realise the proceeds and no deliberate default.

---