<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (8) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81462</link>
    <description>Failure to appear or produce documents in response to a summons under Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was analysed as distinct from contravention of the Act itself. Section 40 authorised the Enforcement Officer to summon persons and require attendance and documents, while Section 40(4) treated the proceeding as a judicial proceeding only for the limited purpose of IPC Sections 193 and 228. The penal provision in Section 56 applied only to contravention of the Act, rules, directions, or orders made under it, so non-compliance with a summons was not covered unless expressly stated. Penal provisions were held to require strict construction, and the prosecution under Section 56 was therefore described as misconceived.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81462</link>
      <description>Failure to appear or produce documents in response to a summons under Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was analysed as distinct from contravention of the Act itself. Section 40 authorised the Enforcement Officer to summon persons and require attendance and documents, while Section 40(4) treated the proceeding as a judicial proceeding only for the limited purpose of IPC Sections 193 and 228. The penal provision in Section 56 applied only to contravention of the Act, rules, directions, or orders made under it, so non-compliance with a summons was not covered unless expressly stated. Penal provisions were held to require strict construction, and the prosecution under Section 56 was therefore described as misconceived.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>