https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252233 Retracted statements recorded during a raid and in custody could not, by themselves, prove contravention under Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 without independent corroboration on material particulars. The alleged earlier statement was also unusable because it was neither referred to in the memorandum nor furnished to the appellant, and was not otherwise established by cogent evidence. Although currency was recovered, the surrounding material did not prove receipt from a person resident outside India through an authorised dealer, and no independent evidence confirmed the alleged foreign source or sender. The charge therefore was not proved, and the confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252233 Retracted statements recorded during a raid and in custody could not, by themselves, prove contravention under Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 without independent corroboration on material particulars. The alleged earlier statement was also unusable because it was neither referred to in the memorandum nor furnished to the appellant, and was not otherwise established by cogent evidence. Although currency was recovered, the surrounding material did not prove receipt from a person resident outside India through an authorised dealer, and no independent evidence confirmed the alleged foreign source or sender. The charge therefore was not proved, and the confiscation and penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 10 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252233