Foreign exchange repatriation compliance: belated recovery efforts could not rebut presumption, but partners escaped simultaneous penalty.

Under foreign exchange repatriation provisions, a rebuttable statutory presumption of non-compliance remained unrebutted because the exporters failed to show timely and sufficient steps to realise and repatriate export proceeds; a belated visit to the foreign buyer was held inadequate. The partnership firm's liability for the contravention was sustained. The individual penalties on the partners, however, were set aside because the Tribunal applied the principle that partners should not be penalised simultaneously with the firm for the same default. The appeals were therefore partly allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had taken reasonable steps to realise and repatriate the export proceeds so as to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the partners could be penalised along with the partnership firm for the same contravention.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had taken reasonable steps to realise and repatriate the export proceeds so as to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The export proceeds remained unrealised for a long period after the exports were made. The only shown effort was a later visit to the foreign buyer, which was held insufficient to amount to reasonable steps. The statutory presumption that reasonable steps were not taken therefore remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: This issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the partners could be penalised along with the partnership firm for the same contravention.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the view that partners are not to be penalised simultaneously with the partnership firm for the same default. On that basis, the individual penalties could not be sustained, while the firm's liability remained unaffected.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the partners and against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The partnership firm's penalty was upheld, but the penalties imposed on the individual partners were set aside, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebuttable statutory presumption of non-compliance under foreign exchange repatriation provisions is not displaced by a belated or merely formal effort, and partners cannot be visited with the same penalty simultaneously with the firm for the same contravention.

---