https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113896 The pre-deposit requirement for challenging a penalty was modified because the surrounding facts justified indulgence and the petitioner offered adequate protective measures. The court accepted that one export consignment had already been written off with RBI approval, that a similar factual basis existed for the second consignment, and that security together with an affidavit of assets would safeguard recovery of the disputed amount. As a result, cash deposit of the entire balance was not insisted upon; the petitioner was allowed to retain the amount already paid, furnish security for the remaining sum, and file an affidavit of assets, with the impugned waiver order varied accordingly. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 May 2012 11:01:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113896 The pre-deposit requirement for challenging a penalty was modified because the surrounding facts justified indulgence and the petitioner offered adequate protective measures. The court accepted that one export consignment had already been written off with RBI approval, that a similar factual basis existed for the second consignment, and that security together with an affidavit of assets would safeguard recovery of the disputed amount. As a result, cash deposit of the entire balance was not insisted upon; the petitioner was allowed to retain the amount already paid, furnish security for the remaining sum, and file an affidavit of assets, with the impugned waiver order varied accordingly. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113896