https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190056 A person summoned under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has no enforceable right to be accompanied by a lawyer or other chosen representative during interrogation unless the statute expressly confers that right. The provision gives the Enforcement Officer discretion to require attendance in person or through an authorised agent, and the statutory scheme for investigating foreign exchange violations was treated as justifying exclusion of audi alteram partem by necessary implication. The Supreme Court's ruling in Poolpandi was treated as concluding the point, and the claim to legal representation at the summons stage was rejected. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190056 A person summoned under Section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has no enforceable right to be accompanied by a lawyer or other chosen representative during interrogation unless the statute expressly confers that right. The provision gives the Enforcement Officer discretion to require attendance in person or through an authorised agent, and the statutory scheme for investigating foreign exchange violations was treated as justifying exclusion of audi alteram partem by necessary implication. The Supreme Court's ruling in Poolpandi was treated as concluding the point, and the claim to legal representation at the summons stage was rejected. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190056