Foreign exchange remittance with proof of import filed with banker defeats penalty; delay also condoned on insufficient notice.

Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the adjudication had been passed ex parte and service of notice was not satisfactorily shown, so the procedural default was not allowed to defeat substantive justice. On the foreign exchange issue, remittance was used for import of goods and proof of import had been filed with the authorised banker, who confirmed the position; on those facts, compliance with section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as established. The alleged breach was regarded as technical only, no contravention was made out, and the penalty was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation. (ii) Whether contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period, but the impugned adjudication order had been passed ex parte and the service of notice was not satisfactorily shown. The explanation for delay was found to be sufficiently accounted for in the circumstances, and the authority declined to allow the procedural default to defeat substantive justice.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was made out on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The record showed that the remittance of foreign exchange had been utilised for import of goods and that proof of import had been filed with the authorised banker, who had issued confirmations in that regard. On those facts, the statutory obligation under section 8(3) read with section 8(4) was treated as having been complied with, and the alleged default was regarded as only technical in nature.

Conclusion: No contravention was established and the penalty could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned adjudication order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where remittance of foreign exchange is supported by proof of import filed with the authorised banker, the alleged breach is technical and penalty is unsustainable; a sufficiently explained delay may also be condoned to advance substantive justice.

---