https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103169 Under-invoicing or misdeclaration of export value, by itself, does not establish contravention of the export-realisation obligations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act unless there is also a failure to realise the full export value as declared. The Court treated section 18(1) as requiring a true declaration and due realisation, but held that the notices did not allege non-realisation of the declared value. It further noted that section 67 routes misdeclaration issues into the customs framework, so proceedings under the foreign exchange regime could not be sustained on these facts. The appellate and penalty orders were set aside and quashed, with refund directed. en-us Fri, 05 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:06:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103169 Under-invoicing or misdeclaration of export value, by itself, does not establish contravention of the export-realisation obligations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act unless there is also a failure to realise the full export value as declared. The Court treated section 18(1) as requiring a true declaration and due realisation, but held that the notices did not allege non-realisation of the declared value. It further noted that section 67 routes misdeclaration issues into the customs framework, so proceedings under the foreign exchange regime could not be sustained on these facts. The appellate and penalty orders were set aside and quashed, with refund directed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 Feb 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103169