TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (11) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12-2-1985 was issued to the firm appellant No. 1 and its two partners appellant Nos. 2 and 3 for contravening the provisions of sections 18(2) and 16(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act') by not realising the export proceeds amounting to Rs. 45,339.50 in respect of the goods exported to West Germany in the year 1977. In their reply the appellants pleaded, inter alia, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned counsel for the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants had made all possible efforts to realise the export proceeds within the prescribed time but failed for reasons beyond their control and the finding of the Adjudicating Officer to the contrary is legally erroneous and factually unjustified. He pointed out that in fact the appellants had approac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods and that their kind help was requested in that regard. A reminder to that letter was also sent to the RBI on 20-9-1979. No reply to the said letter appear to have been sent by the RBI, for reasons unknown. Meanwhile, on 29-4-1978 the appellants wrote to the German Embassy in India seeking their help in the matter. A reply to that letter was received from the Indian Embassy in Germany in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to how the Adjudicating Officer could find the appellants guilty of contravening the provisions of sections 18(2) and 16(1) in face of the aforesaid documentary evidence regarding the efforts made by them since before the expiry of the six months from the date of export. The said efforts included a request to the RBI for its help in the matter. It is difficult to accept that the said efforts made....