2001 (7) TMI 1337 - AT - FEMA

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty imposed for contravening section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
- Request for adjournment due to medical reasons.
- Challenge to the legality of the impugned order.
- Non-realization of export proceeds and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against a penalty imposed for contravening section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant requested an adjournment due to a medical condition, but the tribunal proceeded with the hearing. The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing the age of the case, the small amount involved, and the undisputed facts. The tribunal considered the appellant's request but decided to proceed with the appeal due to the age of the case and the small penalty amount. The appellant also filed a stay petition seeking dispensation of pre-deposit, which was not granted due to lack of financial difficulty or undue hardship pleaded in the petition. Despite the non-deposit of the penalty, the tribunal decided to consider the grounds raised in the appeal for the interest of justice.

The appellant challenged the legality of the impugned order, primarily arguing that the show-cause notice was vague, violating the principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the penalty imposed was excessive. The respondent referred to the presumption under section 18(3) regarding non-realization of export proceeds, placing the onus on the appellant to rebut the presumption by showing reasonable steps taken for realization. The respondent defended the clarity of the show-cause notice and the proportionality of the penalty imposed.

The tribunal analyzed the grounds of appeal and the respondent's submissions, concluding that the appeal lacked substance. It emphasized that once non-realization of export proceeds is established, there is a legal presumption that the exporter did not take reasonable steps for realization. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption with evidence. The tribunal highlighted the exporter's obligations to approach the RBI for necessary extensions or permissions regarding export proceeds. It found no infirmity in the impugned order, the show-cause notice, or the penalty imposed. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty for non-realization of export proceeds.