https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457736 The article examines whether an exporter took all reasonable steps to realise export proceeds so as to avoid penalty under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It notes that the original buyer declined delivery, the dispute was pursued, an alternative buyer was found with Reserve Bank of India permission, and repeated recovery efforts were made through the banker and other channels. The non-realisation was attributed to the banker's failure to forward documents, the need for fresh ECGC cover, and cancellation by the new buyer. On these facts, the burden under section 18(3) was treated as discharged and penalty as unwarranted. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457736 The article examines whether an exporter took all reasonable steps to realise export proceeds so as to avoid penalty under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It notes that the original buyer declined delivery, the dispute was pursued, an alternative buyer was found with Reserve Bank of India permission, and repeated recovery efforts were made through the banker and other channels. The non-realisation was attributed to the banker's failure to forward documents, the need for fresh ECGC cover, and cancellation by the new buyer. On these facts, the burden under section 18(3) was treated as discharged and penalty as unwarranted. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457736