Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was liable for contravention of section 18(2) and section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for non-realisation of export proceeds, and whether the penalty required reduction on the facts of the case.
Analysis: The appellant was a partner of the exporting firm when the exports were made and no material showed that reasonable steps were taken to realise the outstanding export proceeds within the prescribed period or that any extension or waiver was sought from the Reserve Bank of India. A private arrangement between partners could not absolve liability under the statute, and the obligation to realise export proceeds, along with the statutory presumption under section 18(3), remained applicable. At the same time, the exports were old, the appellant had retired long back, and the circumstances justified a reconsideration of the quantum of penalty.
Conclusion: The finding of contravention was upheld, but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000.
Ratio Decidendi: A partner of an exporting firm cannot escape statutory liability for non-realisation of export proceeds on the basis of a private dissolution arrangement, though the penalty may be moderated where the circumstances make the original quantum excessive.