<?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>1967 (2) TMI 106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277760</link>
    <description>Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was read with the export declaration requirements in Form G.R. 1 and Rule 6 to require repatriation of the full declared export value; over-invoicing did not defeat that duty, and the enforcement charge could be sustained on the facts stated. Certiorari was treated as discretionary and could be refused where the challenge depended on the petitioners&#039; own disclosures, false declarations, and pleaded conduct. Section 23(1) was held to provide sufficient guidance for adjudication and penalty, so the Article 14 challenge failed, and allegations of bias or irrelevant considerations were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277760</link>
      <description>Section 12(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was read with the export declaration requirements in Form G.R. 1 and Rule 6 to require repatriation of the full declared export value; over-invoicing did not defeat that duty, and the enforcement charge could be sustained on the facts stated. Certiorari was treated as discretionary and could be refused where the challenge depended on the petitioners&#039; own disclosures, false declarations, and pleaded conduct. Section 23(1) was held to provide sufficient guidance for adjudication and penalty, so the Article 14 challenge failed, and allegations of bias or irrelevant considerations were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>