https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102246 Issuing a foreign exchange receipt before actual receipt of funds did not, on the facts noted, establish abetment where the appellant was an authorised dealer empowered to receive foreign exchange. The authority's view that the receipt was a device to conceal illicit procurement of foreign currency was unsupported by evidence, and the record did not show that the appellant knowingly assisted any unlawful act. On that basis, the allegation of abetment failed, and the proposed confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:19:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102246 Issuing a foreign exchange receipt before actual receipt of funds did not, on the facts noted, establish abetment where the appellant was an authorised dealer empowered to receive foreign exchange. The authority's view that the receipt was a device to conceal illicit procurement of foreign currency was unsupported by evidence, and the record did not show that the appellant knowingly assisted any unlawful act. On that basis, the allegation of abetment failed, and the proposed confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102246