https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326601 Under the foreign exchange appellate scheme, an appeal by the Department was maintainable because the statutory framework permits an aggrieved person to appeal, and the original adjudication by the Collector of Customs brought the Department within that scope. The challenge based on earlier Foreign Exchange Regulation Act precedent failed because that scheme was materially different. On merits, the unchallenged finding of contravention under Section 9(1)(d) had attained finality, so it could not be indirectly reopened while disputing only the consequential relief. The Tribunal was therefore justified in enhancing the penalty and directing confiscation, and its order was upheld. en-us Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2016 15:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326601 Under the foreign exchange appellate scheme, an appeal by the Department was maintainable because the statutory framework permits an aggrieved person to appeal, and the original adjudication by the Collector of Customs brought the Department within that scope. The challenge based on earlier Foreign Exchange Regulation Act precedent failed because that scheme was materially different. On merits, the unchallenged finding of contravention under Section 9(1)(d) had attained finality, so it could not be indirectly reopened while disputing only the consequential relief. The Tribunal was therefore justified in enhancing the penalty and directing confiscation, and its order was upheld. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 19 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326601