https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457855 Contravention for non-realisation of export proceeds under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintained because there was no satisfactory evidence that effective recovery steps had been taken. Mere correspondence with the foreign buyer, without concrete action or a realistic prospect of recovery, was insufficient. The appellant's financial condition was treated as a mitigating factor, and the penalty was found excessive. Balancing culpability and hardship, the Tribunal reduced the penalty and held that a lower amount would meet the ends of justice. en-us Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:20:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457855 Contravention for non-realisation of export proceeds under section 18(2) read with section 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintained because there was no satisfactory evidence that effective recovery steps had been taken. Mere correspondence with the foreign buyer, without concrete action or a realistic prospect of recovery, was insufficient. The appellant's financial condition was treated as a mitigating factor, and the penalty was found excessive. Balancing culpability and hardship, the Tribunal reduced the penalty and held that a lower amount would meet the ends of justice. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457855