https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101717 Limitation under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ran from communication of the Appellate Board's order, and an appeal filed after the nominal due date was treated as in time because the High Court was closed during the intervening period. On the merits, the dispute over contraventions under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) turned on whether the respondent had knowledge or reason to believe that the seller was resident outside India. Section 59 was read as requiring proof of the relevant culpable mental state, but the evidence did not establish that element. The factual finding in the respondent's favour was upheld and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:51:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101717 Limitation under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ran from communication of the Appellate Board's order, and an appeal filed after the nominal due date was treated as in time because the High Court was closed during the intervening period. On the merits, the dispute over contraventions under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(d) turned on whether the respondent had knowledge or reason to believe that the seller was resident outside India. Section 59 was read as requiring proof of the relevant culpable mental state, but the evidence did not establish that element. The factual finding in the respondent's favour was upheld and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 20 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101717