https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184081 Failure to repatriate export proceeds constituted a contravention under Section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where part of the export value remained unrealised, the goods were delivered without a trust receipt, and the firm accepted the buyer's set-off claim without pursuing recovery. The Madras HC noted that the appellate Board had wrongly assumed the first authority had found the buyer's claim false; in fact, it had only treated it as possibly false. It also reiterated that, in Section 18(2) proceedings, proof of mens rea is unnecessary and liability arises from the proved contravention itself, so the penalty orders were sustainable. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:15:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184081 Failure to repatriate export proceeds constituted a contravention under Section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where part of the export value remained unrealised, the goods were delivered without a trust receipt, and the firm accepted the buyer's set-off claim without pursuing recovery. The Madras HC noted that the appellate Board had wrongly assumed the first authority had found the buyer's claim false; in fact, it had only treated it as possibly false. It also reiterated that, in Section 18(2) proceedings, proof of mens rea is unnecessary and liability arises from the proved contravention itself, so the penalty orders were sustainable. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 12 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184081