TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants were liable for contravention of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and consequential penalty where the outstanding export proceeds were not realised for reasons not attributable to them and the adjudication order was passed without evidentiary support.
Analysis: The adjudication was founded on the bank's information and on the assumption that the appellants had no explanation because no reply was filed to the show-cause notice. The record, however, contained a detailed compilation explaining the position of each GRI, including instances where goods were not received by the foreign buyer, goods were reimported, payments had already been partly or fully realised, buyers had become bankrupt, or the appellant had taken steps such as protesting bills, seeking RBI waiver, and pursuing recovery. The findings in the impugned order were therefore not supported by independent evidence and amounted to no real adjudication on the charge. On the facts shown, any non-realisation was not shown to be the result of any act or omission of the appellants.
Conclusion: The appellants were not guilty of contravention of section 18(2), and the penalties imposed on the firm and its partners could not be sustained.
TaxTMI 
