https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247897 A penalty for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not stand where export proceeds were shown to have been received through banking channels and there was no evidence of any unauthorised payment outside the banking system. Suspicion arising from the consignee's failure to lift the goods was insufficient, because no inquiry established that the consignee was fictitious or the transaction sham. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not shift the burden onto the appellants to explain the consignee's conduct, as the relevant facts were capable of verification from the foreign consignee. In the absence of proof of the core allegation, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the exonerating adjudication order restored. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247897 A penalty for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not stand where export proceeds were shown to have been received through banking channels and there was no evidence of any unauthorised payment outside the banking system. Suspicion arising from the consignee's failure to lift the goods was insufficient, because no inquiry established that the consignee was fictitious or the transaction sham. Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not shift the burden onto the appellants to explain the consignee's conduct, as the relevant facts were capable of verification from the foreign consignee. In the absence of proof of the core allegation, the Tribunal's order was set aside and the exonerating adjudication order restored. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247897