https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173300 The court upheld the decision of the Appellate Board in an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The respondent, a car driver intercepted with seized foreign exchange, claimed lack of ownership or knowledge, stating he was merely a carrier. The court emphasized the necessity of transferring an interest in the property to trigger FERA provisions, ruling that mere possession as a carrier does not constitute acquisition. As there was no evidence of the respondent acquiring any interest in the seized properties, the appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the importance of establishing actual acquisition or possession of foreign exchange under FERA. en-us Wed, 08 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:47:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173300 The court upheld the decision of the Appellate Board in an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. The respondent, a car driver intercepted with seized foreign exchange, claimed lack of ownership or knowledge, stating he was merely a carrier. The court emphasized the necessity of transferring an interest in the property to trigger FERA provisions, ruling that mere possession as a carrier does not constitute acquisition. As there was no evidence of the respondent acquiring any interest in the seized properties, the appeal was dismissed without costs, affirming the importance of establishing actual acquisition or possession of foreign exchange under FERA. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 08 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173300