Reasonable steps for export proceeds recovery can rebut statutory presumption only with clear evidence of diligence.

Exporters under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are liable not only for non-realisation of export proceeds but also for failure to take reasonable steps to secure recovery or repatriation. Once the prescribed period expires without payment, a rebuttable presumption arises that reasonable steps were not taken. On the facts discussed, the correspondence and explanations did not establish timely or effective recovery efforts, and the plea based on the conduct of the bank or foreign buyer lacked supporting evidence. The cited precedent was treated as fact-specific and inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had taken reasonable steps to realize and repatriate export proceeds so as to displace the statutory presumption of contravention under section 18(2) and section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether the penalty required interference.

Analysis: The governing provisions make the exporter liable not merely for non-realization of export proceeds but for failure to take reasonable steps to secure recovery or repatriation of the amount. Once the prescribed period expires without payment, a rebuttable presumption arises that reasonable steps were not taken. On the facts, the record did not show timely or effective action by the appellant to recover the proceeds or otherwise protect its position. The correspondence relied upon did not establish sufficient diligence, and the plea of inability due to the conduct of the bank or foreign buyer was not supported by material evidence. The cited precedent was held inapplicable because it arose on a different factual foundation.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption or establish reasonable steps for realization of export proceeds. The penalty was sustained and the appeal failed.

---