Export proceeds and rebuttable presumption required fresh examination before exoneration could be sustained

Revisional petitions under Section 52(4) were maintainable because no prescribed limitation governed the power, though it had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and the title-description defects were only technical misdescription. The exoneration order could not stand because, under Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) read with Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, the authority had to examine whether export proceeds were realised and whether the exporters had taken reasonable steps to repatriate them; the rebuttable presumption of non-compliance was not properly addressed. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petitions were maintainable despite the delay and technical objections regarding description and signatures; (ii) Whether the impugned exoneration order could stand when the statutory presumption under the export-realisation provisions and the question of reasonable steps for repatriation had not been properly examined.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petitions were maintainable despite the delay and technical objections regarding description and signatures.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 52(4) is not governed by a prescribed limitation period, but it must be exercised within a reasonable time. The period is judged by the facts of each case, and the absence of waiver or acquiescence is material. The defects in the title description of the authority and the respondent were treated as mere misdescription and technical irregularities, not going to the root of maintainability.

Conclusion: The revision petitions were held maintainable and the preliminary objections were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned exoneration order could stand when the statutory presumption under the export-realisation provisions and the question of reasonable steps for repatriation had not been properly examined.

Analysis: Under Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, read with Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974, an exporter must realise export proceeds within the prescribed period, and failure to do so raises a rebuttable presumption that reasonable steps were not taken. The order under challenge did not properly determine whether the exporters had discharged that burden or whether the adverse presumption stood rebutted. In the absence of such examination, the exoneration could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the exoneration succeeded, and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision on the merits from the stage of the show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a rebuttable presumption of contravention for non-realisation of export proceeds, the adjudicating authority must specifically examine whether the exporter took reasonable steps to recover the payment before exonerating the exporter.

---