https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103559 The Supreme Court of India's analysis on foreign-exchange penalty provisions explains that mens rea is not required where the proceeding is adjudicatory and aimed at enforcing a statutory obligation to repatriate foreign exchange. The liability arises from breach of the civil obligation itself, so penalty may follow without proof of criminal intent. The analysis also distinguishes the two parts of section 10: section 10(1) imposes the primary obligation to secure receipt of foreign exchange within a reasonable time, while section 10(2) permits regulatory directions only after failure to comply with section 10(1). Breach of section 10(2) is therefore not a condition precedent to penalty for section 10(1). en-us Tue, 09 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Oct 2025 14:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103559 The Supreme Court of India's analysis on foreign-exchange penalty provisions explains that mens rea is not required where the proceeding is adjudicatory and aimed at enforcing a statutory obligation to repatriate foreign exchange. The liability arises from breach of the civil obligation itself, so penalty may follow without proof of criminal intent. The analysis also distinguishes the two parts of section 10: section 10(1) imposes the primary obligation to secure receipt of foreign exchange within a reasonable time, while section 10(2) permits regulatory directions only after failure to comply with section 10(1). Breach of section 10(2) is therefore not a condition precedent to penalty for section 10(1). Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 09 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103559