https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166893 Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was read broadly to prohibit acquisition of foreign exchange in India by any person other than an authorised dealer without Reserve Bank permission, so a claim of residence outside India did not take the appellant outside its scope. The appellant also failed to prove lawful acquisition of the seized foreign currency under section 71(3), as the material showed only earnings abroad and did not establish lawful savings brought into India; the factual findings below were not open to interference in an appeal confined to questions of law. The contravention finding was maintained, but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 5,000, with refund of any excess deposit. en-us Fri, 23 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:31:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166893 Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was read broadly to prohibit acquisition of foreign exchange in India by any person other than an authorised dealer without Reserve Bank permission, so a claim of residence outside India did not take the appellant outside its scope. The appellant also failed to prove lawful acquisition of the seized foreign currency under section 71(3), as the material showed only earnings abroad and did not establish lawful savings brought into India; the factual findings below were not open to interference in an appeal confined to questions of law. The contravention finding was maintained, but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 5,000, with refund of any excess deposit. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 23 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166893