Export proceeds realisation through authorised banking channel upheld, with penalty sustained for unproved repatriation

Evidence showing only credit of pay orders into the appellant's current account was insufficient because it did not establish that those amounts were the export proceeds covered by the relevant GRI forms. As the record failed to displace the finding that the export proceeds remained unrealised and were not repatriated through the authorised banking channel, contravention of foreign exchange law was upheld. The explanation for receiving payment directly, rather than through the authorised channel, was rejected, and the long pendency of the outstanding proceeds supported refusal to reduce the penalty. The penalty was held reasonable and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had satisfactorily established realisation of the export proceeds in respect of the GRI forms in issue and whether the penalty imposed for contravention of the foreign exchange law required interference.

Analysis: The certificate produced only showed credit of certain pay orders in the appellant's current account; it did not state that those amounts represented the export proceeds covered by the GRI forms in question. The record therefore did not displace the finding that the export proceeds remained unrealised in the manner required by law. The explanation for receiving the amounts directly, instead of through the authorised banking channel, was also found unacceptable, and the long pendency of the outstanding proceeds weighed against any reduction of the penalty.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was upheld and the penalty was held to be reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence does not establish that payments credited in an account correspond to the specific export proceeds under reference, and the proceeds are not repatriated through the authorised banking channel, the contravention is made out and the penalty need not be interfered with.

---