https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167650 Liability under section 23C(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was treated as subject to strict construction: a person is in charge of a firm only when he has overall control of its day-to-day business, not merely a formal or policy role. On the facts, the appellant's own statement that he alone looked after the firm's affairs was decisive, and his temporary absence abroad did not displace that position without evidence of handover of control; the finding of liability was upheld. On sentencing, however, the Court considered the absence abroad and the possibility of lack of knowledge or due diligence, so the conviction stood but rigorous imprisonment was replaced by a fine. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167650 Liability under section 23C(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was treated as subject to strict construction: a person is in charge of a firm only when he has overall control of its day-to-day business, not merely a formal or policy role. On the facts, the appellant's own statement that he alone looked after the firm's affairs was decisive, and his temporary absence abroad did not displace that position without evidence of handover of control; the finding of liability was upheld. On sentencing, however, the Court considered the absence abroad and the possibility of lack of knowledge or due diligence, so the conviction stood but rigorous imprisonment was replaced by a fine. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 18 Feb 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167650