<?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>1986 (9) TMI 356 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101365</link>
    <description>Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 prohibited an exporter from securing payment otherwise than in the prescribed manner or from receiving less than the full amount payable, subject to permitted deductions. On the facts recorded by the enforcement authorities, the exporter received only part of the export value, privately disposed of the goods, failed to comply with Reserve Bank directions, and could not show what amount, if any, was realised through the private sale. The defence of a foreign buyer&#039;s counter-claim was disbelieved on the evidence, and the transaction value itself indicated that full export proceeds had not been repatriated. Contravention of section 12(2) was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 356 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101365</link>
      <description>Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 prohibited an exporter from securing payment otherwise than in the prescribed manner or from receiving less than the full amount payable, subject to permitted deductions. On the facts recorded by the enforcement authorities, the exporter received only part of the export value, privately disposed of the goods, failed to comply with Reserve Bank directions, and could not show what amount, if any, was realised through the private sale. The defence of a foreign buyer&#039;s counter-claim was disbelieved on the evidence, and the transaction value itself indicated that full export proceeds had not been repatriated. Contravention of section 12(2) was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101365</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>