https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363916 Penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was examined in light of diary entries, a custodial statement, a co-noticee's retracted statement, and denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that the earlier criminal discharge had already treated the diary entries as unreliable evidence of real transactions, and that finding had attained finality, so the same entries could not sustain foreign exchange liability. It also found the appellant's custodial statement infirm because of corrections, missing attestations, absent signatures on earlier pages, and indications of tampering. The co-noticee's retracted statement, without independent corroboration, was insufficient, and denial of cross-examination offended natural justice, so the penalty was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:45:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363916 Penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was examined in light of diary entries, a custodial statement, a co-noticee's retracted statement, and denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal noted that the earlier criminal discharge had already treated the diary entries as unreliable evidence of real transactions, and that finding had attained finality, so the same entries could not sustain foreign exchange liability. It also found the appellant's custodial statement infirm because of corrections, missing attestations, absent signatures on earlier pages, and indications of tampering. The co-noticee's retracted statement, without independent corroboration, was insufficient, and denial of cross-examination offended natural justice, so the penalty was not sustainable. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363916