https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457780 Subsequent realisation of export proceeds through banking channels and an RBI extension can negate a proposed contravention under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where the department itself confirms that no amount remains outstanding. The adjudicating authority must consider later documentary proof of payment and not rely only on the position existing on an earlier date; if the factual foundation for the charge does not survive, penalty under section 68(1) cannot be sustained. Once the principal contravention fails, any consequential vicarious liability of directors also falls away. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457780 Subsequent realisation of export proceeds through banking channels and an RBI extension can negate a proposed contravention under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where the department itself confirms that no amount remains outstanding. The adjudicating authority must consider later documentary proof of payment and not rely only on the position existing on an earlier date; if the factual foundation for the charge does not survive, penalty under section 68(1) cannot be sustained. Once the principal contravention fails, any consequential vicarious liability of directors also falls away. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457780