https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242856 A review under FERA was held not maintainable because the statute contained no express power of review or rectification, so the earlier appellate order could not be reopened. The claimed immunity for deposit of foreign exchange did not extend to a separate payment of equivalent Indian currency to a non-resident without permission, leaving that liability intact. On the merits, the alleged violation was proved on a civil standard: FERA proceedings require proof on preponderance of probabilities, and the surrounding circumstances supported the charge. The review applications therefore failed and the penalty findings were left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:32:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242856 A review under FERA was held not maintainable because the statute contained no express power of review or rectification, so the earlier appellate order could not be reopened. The claimed immunity for deposit of foreign exchange did not extend to a separate payment of equivalent Indian currency to a non-resident without permission, leaving that liability intact. On the merits, the alleged violation was proved on a civil standard: FERA proceedings require proof on preponderance of probabilities, and the surrounding circumstances supported the charge. The review applications therefore failed and the penalty findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242856