<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (1) TMI 1236 - THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159238</link>
    <description>Unutilized foreign exchange could be surrendered within the period permitted by the governing notification after the holder knew it could not be used, so no contravention of Section 8(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was made out where seizure occurred before that period expired. The tribunal found that the appellant returned from abroad with foreign currency, but the search and seizure took place within about 10 days of return, before the 90-day surrender period under the notification had run. The penalty was therefore unsustainable, the penalty order was set aside, and the amount deposited towards penalty was directed to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:40:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1236 - THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159238</link>
      <description>Unutilized foreign exchange could be surrendered within the period permitted by the governing notification after the holder knew it could not be used, so no contravention of Section 8(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was made out where seizure occurred before that period expired. The tribunal found that the appellant returned from abroad with foreign currency, but the search and seizure took place within about 10 days of return, before the 90-day surrender period under the notification had run. The penalty was therefore unsustainable, the penalty order was set aside, and the amount deposited towards penalty was directed to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>