Repatriation of export proceeds upheld where exporter failed to rebut statutory presumption and justify non-realisation.

Export of goods outside India created an obligation to repatriate the sale proceeds, and liability did not depend on actual delivery to the foreign buyer. The failure to take delivery, or an asserted auction sale by Singapore Customs, did not relieve the exporter of the duty to account for and repatriate the value realised from the goods. The statutory presumption under section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act operated against the exporter, and no satisfactory evidence was produced to rebut it. The penalty was considered proportionate because it was below the unrepatriated amount, so the contravention finding and penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant failed to repatriate the export proceeds and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, justifying the penalty imposed under section 18(2).

Analysis: The export of goods outside India attracted the obligation to repatriate the sale proceeds, and the expression used in section 18(2) concerned export of goods, not actual sale or completion of delivery to the foreign buyer. Non-taking of delivery by the buyer and the asserted auction sale by Singapore Customs did not relieve the appellant of the responsibility to account for and repatriate the value realised from the goods sent India. The statutory presumption under section 18(3) operated against the appellant, and no satisfactory evidence was produced to displace it. The penalty was also found to be below the unrepatriated amount and not excessive.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish any ground for interference, and the penalty and contravention finding were upheld against the appellant.

---