https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215531 Penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be sustained where the record did not show that the appellant knew, at the time of receiving the amount, that the relevant directors were resident outside India. A later statement by the appellant was insufficient to prove earlier knowledge, and the adverse inference drawn from non-production of an agreement was not enough to replace proof of contravention. In the absence of evidence establishing receipt of payment on behalf of persons resident outside India in violation of the statute, the finding rested on inference and conjecture rather than proved facts, and the penalty was therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215531 Penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be sustained where the record did not show that the appellant knew, at the time of receiving the amount, that the relevant directors were resident outside India. A later statement by the appellant was insufficient to prove earlier knowledge, and the adverse inference drawn from non-production of an agreement was not enough to replace proof of contravention. In the absence of evidence establishing receipt of payment on behalf of persons resident outside India in violation of the statute, the finding rested on inference and conjecture rather than proved facts, and the penalty was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215531