https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457491 Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act created a rebuttable presumption against the exporter once the prescribed period for realisation expired without payment. The appellants failed to rebut that presumption because the record did not show timely and effective steps to recover the export proceeds; the correspondence relied on largely concerned other entities, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court claim was filed only after expiry of the relevant period, and no adequate approach to the Indian Embassy or the Reserve Bank was shown within time. On those facts, the finding of contravention of section 18(2) was sustained, and the penalty was upheld as proportionate. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2024 17:12:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457491 Section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act created a rebuttable presumption against the exporter once the prescribed period for realisation expired without payment. The appellants failed to rebut that presumption because the record did not show timely and effective steps to recover the export proceeds; the correspondence relied on largely concerned other entities, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court claim was filed only after expiry of the relevant period, and no adequate approach to the Indian Embassy or the Reserve Bank was shown within time. On those facts, the finding of contravention of section 18(2) was sustained, and the penalty was upheld as proportionate. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457491