Proof of import through authorised banker defeats foreign exchange contravention where transaction is otherwise genuine.

Where an importer produced a banker's letter and forwarded bill of entry showing that goods were actually imported and that proof had been submitted through the authorised banker, the alleged contravention under foreign exchange provisions was not established. The tribunal treated the earlier omission to file the bill of entry as a procedural defect because the genuineness of the transaction was otherwise shown and no further rebuttal evidence was produced. On that basis, the statutory obligation to prove import was treated as satisfied, and the penalty order could not survive.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had established compliance with the obligation to import goods by producing proof of import through the authorized banker, so as to disprove the alleged contravention and penalty under the foreign exchange .

Analysis: The appeal challenged the penalty imposed for alleged contravention of the obligation arising on receipt of foreign exchange. The appellant produced the banker's letter and the forwarded bill of entry, showing that the goods had in fact been imported and that proof of import had been submitted with the authorized banker. On these facts, the absence of any further proof from the respondent meant that the alleged violation was not established. The omission to file the bill of entry earlier was treated as a procedural matter where the genuineness of the transaction was otherwise shown.

Conclusion: The appellant had satisfied the statutory obligation by proving import of goods, and the contravention was not made out.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order could not survive and was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the importer produces reliable proof of import through the authorized banker and the transaction is otherwise genuine, mere procedural defect in filing documentation does not establish contravention under the foreign exchange provisions.

---