Narrow revisional jurisdiction bars re-appreciation of evidence absent illegality or perversity in export proceeds cases.

Under section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, revisional power is narrow and is to be exercised sparingly only where grave injustice, illegality, or perversity is shown. Where the challenge concerns appreciation of evidence, including letters relied on to show the bankruptcy or untraceability of foreign buyers, that assessment remains within the adjudicating authority's domain. The Tribunal cannot substitute its own view of facts or re-appreciate the evidence merely because a different conclusion is possible. In the absence of demonstrated illegality or perversity, the finding that reasonable steps were taken for repatriation of export proceeds was left undisturbed and the revision petitions failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a revision under section 52(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the Tribunal could re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the adjudicating authority's finding that reasonable steps had been taken for repatriation of export proceeds.

Analysis: The revisional power was held to be narrow and to be exercised sparingly only where grave injustice, illegality, or perversity is shown. The challenge raised by the Enforcement Directorate related only to the evaluation of evidence, particularly letters relied upon to show bankruptcy or untraceability of foreign buyers. The Tribunal held that appreciation of such evidence lay within the adjudicating authority's domain and that revisional jurisdiction did not extend to substituting a different view on facts in the absence of demonstrated illegality or perversity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal held that it could not re-assess the evidence or disturb the adjudicating authority's finding, and the revision petitions had no merit.

---