<?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>2016 (9) TMI 1344 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193781</link>
    <description>Vicarious liability for foreign exchange contraventions cannot be fastened on company directors merely because of their office; the enforcing authority must plead and prove specific facts showing that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business when the contravention occurred. On the record, there was no reliable evidence that the respondents participated in day-to-day affairs during the relevant period, and the distinction between executive control and non-executive directorship supported that result. Liability therefore could not be inferred from directorship alone, and the order declining to impose liability on the respondent directors was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2017 08:10:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1344 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193781</link>
      <description>Vicarious liability for foreign exchange contraventions cannot be fastened on company directors merely because of their office; the enforcing authority must plead and prove specific facts showing that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business when the contravention occurred. On the record, there was no reliable evidence that the respondents participated in day-to-day affairs during the relevant period, and the distinction between executive control and non-executive directorship supported that result. Liability therefore could not be inferred from directorship alone, and the order declining to impose liability on the respondent directors was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>