https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244189 Expatriate employees seconded by a foreign parent company to an Indian liaison or branch office remained employees of the foreign parent, and in the absence of any privity of contract with the Indian office, salary remittances by the parent did not amount to acquisition or repayment of foreign exchange by that office under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The same factual basis could not sustain a contravention finding under section 8(1), and the penalty under section 50 was unsustainable because no reasons were recorded for quantification. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2014 10:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244189 Expatriate employees seconded by a foreign parent company to an Indian liaison or branch office remained employees of the foreign parent, and in the absence of any privity of contract with the Indian office, salary remittances by the parent did not amount to acquisition or repayment of foreign exchange by that office under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The same factual basis could not sustain a contravention finding under section 8(1), and the penalty under section 50 was unsustainable because no reasons were recorded for quantification. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244189