https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457956 Where the evidence showed that exporters and their bankers had been pressing the foreign buyer for payment and had also approached the Indian High Commissioner in London, the alleged failure to take effective steps to realise export proceeds was not established. A commercial decision not to sue the foreign buyer, because proceedings were considered inexpedient, amounted at most to an error of judgment and did not attract penal liability under section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The contravention was therefore not made out and the penalty could not be sustained. en-us Sat, 21 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457956 Where the evidence showed that exporters and their bankers had been pressing the foreign buyer for payment and had also approached the Indian High Commissioner in London, the alleged failure to take effective steps to realise export proceeds was not established. A commercial decision not to sue the foreign buyer, because proceedings were considered inexpedient, amounted at most to an error of judgment and did not attract penal liability under section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The contravention was therefore not made out and the penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Sat, 21 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457956