Limitation and export proceeds contravention: unsupported delay plea failed, and statutory presumption under foreign exchange law was upheld.

An appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period was rejected as time-barred because no sufficient cause was shown for condonation. The Tribunal also rejected dispensation of pre-deposit, holding that unsupported hardship pleas did not justify relief. On merits, failure to realise export proceeds, without obtaining RBI extension or taking effective recovery or write-off steps, triggered the statutory presumption under section 18(3) that reasonable steps had not been taken. The appellants did not rebut that presumption, so contravention under section 18(2) was made out and the penalty order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed period was liable to be dismissed as time-barred. (ii) Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and were entitled to dispensation of pre-deposit, and whether the finding of contravention for failure to realise export proceeds was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed beyond the prescribed period was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after expiry of the maximum period permissible under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. No sufficient cause was established to justify condonation of the delay. The Tribunal found that the appeal could not be entertained beyond limitation.

Conclusion: The appeal was held to be time-barred and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay and were entitled to dispensation of pre-deposit, and whether the finding of contravention for failure to realise export proceeds was sustainable.

Analysis: The explanations offered for delay and for non-deposit were found to be unsupported and insufficient. On merits, the appellants had not realised the export proceeds, had not obtained extension from the Reserve Bank of India, and had not taken the necessary steps to secure recovery or write off the outstanding amounts. Under section 18(3), non-realisation attracted a statutory presumption that reasonable steps had not been taken, and the appellants failed to rebut that presumption. The contravention under section 18(2) was therefore made out.

Conclusion: The request for condonation and dispensation was rejected and the finding of contravention was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed both on limitation and on merits, and the penalty order remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export proceeds are not realised and the importer/exporter fails to obtain extension or otherwise rebut the statutory presumption under section 18(3), the failure constitutes contravention under section 18(2); an unsupported plea of hardship does not justify condonation or dispensation of pre-deposit.

---