Revisional jurisdiction and export proceeds repatriation: unexplained delay and absence of manifest illegality defeated interference.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 19(6) of FEMA is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly and within a reasonable time, so a revision filed after about nine months without explanation was treated as barred by delay and laches. On the merits, section 18(2) of FERA requires an exporter to take reasonably effective steps to secure repatriation of export proceeds, and the presumption under section 18(3) may be rebutted by proof of such steps. Where the adjudicating authority found that the exporter had taken steps and non-realisation resulted from factors beyond control, revisional interference was unwarranted because the authority cannot reappreciate evidence absent manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision filed after about nine months under section 19(6) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 could be entertained in the absence of any explanation for delay. (ii) Whether the adjudication order exonerating the respondents from contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 called for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a revision filed after about nine months under section 19(6) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 could be entertained in the absence of any explanation for delay.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 19(6) is an exceptional jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and within a reasonable time. Even though no express limitation period is prescribed, the filing party cannot ignore delay altogether. A long unexplained delay may amount to laches and indicate waiver and acquiescence, especially where the petition is drafted in the manner of an appeal rather than a true revision.

Conclusion: The revision was not fit for entertainment on account of unreasonable delay and laches.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order exonerating the respondents from contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 called for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 18(2) requires an exporter to take reasonably effective steps to secure repatriation of export proceeds, while section 18(3) raises a rebuttable presumption that may be displaced by proof of such steps. On the facts found in the adjudication order, the exporter had taken steps for realization, and non-repatriation was attributed to circumstances beyond its control, including rejection of documents for quality issues and failure of the channelising bank. The revisional authority cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only for manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: No ground was made out for interference with the exoneration recorded by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed both on delay and on merits, and the impugned exoneration was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction is an exceptional remedy to correct manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice, not to reappreciate evidence or upset a reasoned finding where the relevant presumption stands rebutted by proof of reasonably effective steps.

---