<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (8) TMI 1381 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191548</link>
    <description>An exporter avoids contravention of export realisation requirements where it shows reasonable and bona fide recovery efforts, including legal notices, civil proceedings, correspondence with the RBI and the authorised dealer, and other steps taken to recover outstanding GR form proceeds. The Tribunal held that the adequacy of the efforts, not their number, is the relevant test. It further treated the Delhi High Court&#039;s later quashing of the connected criminal complaint on identical facts as materially relevant to whether the alleged default was established. On that basis, no contravention of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA was made out and the adjudication penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:09:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465140" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1381 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191548</link>
      <description>An exporter avoids contravention of export realisation requirements where it shows reasonable and bona fide recovery efforts, including legal notices, civil proceedings, correspondence with the RBI and the authorised dealer, and other steps taken to recover outstanding GR form proceeds. The Tribunal held that the adequacy of the efforts, not their number, is the relevant test. It further treated the Delhi High Court&#039;s later quashing of the connected criminal complaint on identical facts as materially relevant to whether the alleged default was established. On that basis, no contravention of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of FERA was made out and the adjudication penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>