Burden of explaining disputed import price upheld; unsupported revision claim failed and penalty remained in force.

Discrepancy between two same-day import quotations was not explained by the appellant, because the lower quotation contained handwritten additions and the appellant produced no proper arithmetic reconciliation or supporting correspondence to show that it reflected the true revised price. Since the true import price was a matter specially within the appellant's knowledge, the burden of explaining the inconsistency rested on it, and unsupported assertions of revision were insufficient. The alleged contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was therefore upheld, the penalty was sustained, and the adjudication order remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had contravened section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by utilising foreign exchange in a manner inconsistent with the import price shown in the transaction documents, and whether the penalty imposed was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Two quotations of the same date were produced, one showing a lower price with additional items inserted by hand and the other showing a higher price for a typed list of 39 items. The appellant did not establish, by proper arithmetic or supporting correspondence, that the lower quotation reflected the true price after inclusion of the added items. The matter was one specially within the appellant's knowledge, and the burden of explaining the discrepancy lay on it. A higher figure could not be accepted as a mere assertion of revision in the absence of an express subsequent revision from the seller.

Conclusion: The contravention was upheld and the penalty was sustained; the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was maintained and the appellant obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the truth of a disputed import price lies within the exclusive knowledge of the party concerned, that party must produce clear and affirmative material to explain the discrepancy; unsupported assertions do not displace the adverse inference.

---