https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244600 Alleged contravention of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was not established because the material did not prove that the appellant made or caused a payment to or for the credit of any person on behalf of a resident outside India. The statements relied upon by the authorities did not create a nexus between the appellant and the foreign exchange transaction, and the statement of Shri Sunil Narang did not implicate the appellant. The appellant's alleged admission had been retracted, and without independent corroboration it could not support guilt. Presumptions and reliance on special knowledge could not cure the absence of connecting evidence, so the penalty could not stand. en-us Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 02 Mar 2014 07:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244600 Alleged contravention of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was not established because the material did not prove that the appellant made or caused a payment to or for the credit of any person on behalf of a resident outside India. The statements relied upon by the authorities did not create a nexus between the appellant and the foreign exchange transaction, and the statement of Shri Sunil Narang did not implicate the appellant. The appellant's alleged admission had been retracted, and without independent corroboration it could not support guilt. Presumptions and reliance on special knowledge could not cure the absence of connecting evidence, so the penalty could not stand. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 03 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244600