https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85899 Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, statutory presumptions attached to seized documents and the burden-shifting scheme required the person proceeded against to explain or rebut the alleged foreign exchange dealings. The seized letter, the accused's statement and subsequent replies were treated as consistent material supporting contravention of Sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d). The discussion also notes that separate proof by the prosecution that the foreign correspondent was a person resident outside India was not decisive where the documents and the accused's failure to rebut the presumption pointed the other way. On sentence, the offence was treated as an economic offence and a fine was considered sufficient. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85899 Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, statutory presumptions attached to seized documents and the burden-shifting scheme required the person proceeded against to explain or rebut the alleged foreign exchange dealings. The seized letter, the accused's statement and subsequent replies were treated as consistent material supporting contravention of Sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(d). The discussion also notes that separate proof by the prosecution that the foreign correspondent was a person resident outside India was not decisive where the documents and the accused's failure to rebut the presumption pointed the other way. On sentence, the offence was treated as an economic offence and a fine was considered sufficient. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85899