Foreign exchange utilisation burden and statutory presumption upheld, with penalty sustained for failure to prove lawful use.

Foreign exchange acquired for a stated purpose had to be used only for that purpose, or surrendered within the prescribed time if unused. The regulation also operated on a statutory presumption that, where the goods were not sent or brought in accordance with the acquisition purpose, the foreign exchange was not so used unless the contrary was proved. As the appellants produced no evidence of lawful utilisation and did not rebut that presumption, the burden remained undischarged and the penalty order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants established lawful utilisation of the foreign exchange acquired and remitted, so as to avoid the statutory consequence under the foreign exchange law and the penalty imposed for contravention.

Analysis: The foreign exchange regulation placed an obligation on the person acquiring foreign exchange for a particular purpose to use it only for that purpose or, if it could not be so used, to surrender it within the prescribed time. The law also created a presumption that where goods were not sent or brought in accordance with the purpose of acquisition, the foreign exchange had not been used for that purpose unless the contrary was proved. The appellants produced no evidentiary material to show utilisation of the remitted foreign exchange for the permitted purpose and did not displace the statutory presumption. The statutory burden therefore remained undischarged, and the adjudication order imposing penalty could not be faulted.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the appeals failed.

---