https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4190 Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were examined against Article 14. Their Ninth Schedule inclusion attracted Article 31B protection; independently, the distinction between domestic traders and exporters was connected rationally to preventing foreign-exchange misuse and ensuring repatriation of export proceeds. Exporter hardship alone did not establish discrimination, particularly without foundational facts demonstrating arbitrary or confiscatory operation. The reverse burden was rebuttable and procedural. On the available material, criminal proceedings and refusal of discharge were not interfered with, while ultimate guilt remained for determination by the criminal court. en-us Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2015 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4190 Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were examined against Article 14. Their Ninth Schedule inclusion attracted Article 31B protection; independently, the distinction between domestic traders and exporters was connected rationally to preventing foreign-exchange misuse and ensuring repatriation of export proceeds. Exporter hardship alone did not establish discrimination, particularly without foundational facts demonstrating arbitrary or confiscatory operation. The reverse burden was rebuttable and procedural. On the available material, criminal proceedings and refusal of discharge were not interfered with, while ultimate guilt remained for determination by the criminal court. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 12 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4190