https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106708 Changing export bills from D.P. to D.A. and failing to repatriate export proceeds was treated as a contravention of the export-realisation obligations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Rules, because the altered payment terms enabled delivery without receipt of foreign exchange. The exporters were also held not to have proved that all reasonable steps had been taken to recover the dues; prolonged inaction and belated explanations meant the statutory presumption operated against them. Statements recorded under section 40 were regarded as admissible and reliable evidence. A payment routed between non-residents on the instructions of resident exporters, without Reserve Bank permission, was treated as falling within the foreign-exchange prohibition. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:05:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106708 Changing export bills from D.P. to D.A. and failing to repatriate export proceeds was treated as a contravention of the export-realisation obligations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the Rules, because the altered payment terms enabled delivery without receipt of foreign exchange. The exporters were also held not to have proved that all reasonable steps had been taken to recover the dues; prolonged inaction and belated explanations meant the statutory presumption operated against them. Statements recorded under section 40 were regarded as admissible and reliable evidence. A payment routed between non-residents on the instructions of resident exporters, without Reserve Bank permission, was treated as falling within the foreign-exchange prohibition. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106708