https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457535 Revisional petitions under Section 52(4) were maintainable because no prescribed limitation governed the power, though it had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and the title-description defects were only technical misdescription. The exoneration order could not stand because, under Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) read with Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, the authority had to examine whether export proceeds were realised and whether the exporters had taken reasonable steps to repatriate them; the rebuttable presumption of non-compliance was not properly addressed. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457535 Revisional petitions under Section 52(4) were maintainable because no prescribed limitation governed the power, though it had to be exercised within a reasonable time, and the title-description defects were only technical misdescription. The exoneration order could not stand because, under Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) read with Rule 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, the authority had to examine whether export proceeds were realised and whether the exporters had taken reasonable steps to repatriate them; the rebuttable presumption of non-compliance was not properly addressed. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457535