https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172912 Concurrent findings of fact do not bar appellate scrutiny where perversity, absence of evidence, or disregard of relevant material gives rise to a question of law. On that basis, the appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable. The exoneration under Section 8(1) was found unsustainable because the currency declaration forms, handwriting analysis, and the disparity between declared and deposited foreign exchange indicated forgery, while the adjudication had accepted the defence without adequate inquiry and without a fair opportunity to the Department. The exonerating orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Sep 2015 15:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172912 Concurrent findings of fact do not bar appellate scrutiny where perversity, absence of evidence, or disregard of relevant material gives rise to a question of law. On that basis, the appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable. The exoneration under Section 8(1) was found unsustainable because the currency declaration forms, handwriting analysis, and the disparity between declared and deposited foreign exchange indicated forgery, while the adjudication had accepted the defence without adequate inquiry and without a fair opportunity to the Department. The exonerating orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 21 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172912