https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248673 A noticee in FERA proceedings could invoke Article 20(3) to refuse answers to incriminating questions, and such refusal did not justify an adverse inference where exposure to criminal liability still existed. Diary entries relied on by the Enforcement Directorate were only corroborative material; without independent evidence, they could not by themselves prove acquisition, transfer, or non-surrender of foreign exchange under Section 8(1). The Court held that a single unexplained entry could not be treated as substantive proof, and that the burden could not be shifted on that basis alone. The adjudication and appellate findings were therefore unsustainable, and the penalty was directed to be refunded. en-us Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jan 2017 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248673 A noticee in FERA proceedings could invoke Article 20(3) to refuse answers to incriminating questions, and such refusal did not justify an adverse inference where exposure to criminal liability still existed. Diary entries relied on by the Enforcement Directorate were only corroborative material; without independent evidence, they could not by themselves prove acquisition, transfer, or non-surrender of foreign exchange under Section 8(1). The Court held that a single unexplained entry could not be treated as substantive proof, and that the burden could not be shifted on that basis alone. The adjudication and appellate findings were therefore unsustainable, and the penalty was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 29 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248673