https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242856 The Appellate Tribunal upheld penalties for violating Section 9(l)(f)(i) of FERA, dismissing Review Applications due to lack of evidence refuting payments to non-residents. The Tribunal distinguished between criminal and civil proceedings under FERA, emphasizing the burden of proof in civil obligations cases. The Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991, did not protect payments in Indian currency to non-residents without RBI permission, justifying penalties. 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 The Appellate Tribunal upheld penalties for violating Section 9(l)(f)(i) of FERA, dismissing Review Applications due to lack of evidence refuting payments to non-residents. The Tribunal distinguished between criminal and civil proceedings under FERA, emphasizing the burden of proof in civil obligations cases. The Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act, 1991, did not protect payments in Indian currency to non-residents without RBI permission, justifying penalties. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242856