https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158807 Failure to realise and repatriate export proceeds attracted the statutory presumption under Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the exporter had to show timely, meaningful steps to recover payment. The record did not establish effective action within the prescribed period: the correspondence mainly concerned other entities, the claim before the U.S. bankruptcy attorney was made only after expiry of time, and no effective earlier approach to the Indian Embassy or RBI was shown. The presumption was therefore not rebutted, contravention under Section 18(2) was upheld, and the penalty was found not excessive or harsh. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Nov 2013 15:37:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158807 Failure to realise and repatriate export proceeds attracted the statutory presumption under Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the exporter had to show timely, meaningful steps to recover payment. The record did not establish effective action within the prescribed period: the correspondence mainly concerned other entities, the claim before the U.S. bankruptcy attorney was made only after expiry of time, and no effective earlier approach to the Indian Embassy or RBI was shown. The presumption was therefore not rebutted, contravention under Section 18(2) was upheld, and the penalty was found not excessive or harsh. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158807