<?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>2019 (3) TMI 1517 - ATFEMA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377496</link>
    <description>Penalty for non-realisation of export proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be sustained where the exporter had obtained extension of time for Iraqi export receipts and waiver applications for other outstanding amounts were still pending; on that basis, adjudication was premature and the company penalty was set aside. Personal penalties on directors also failed because vicarious liability under section 68 required specific pleadings and material showing that each director was in charge of, and responsible for, the company&#039;s export business and the non-realisation in question. Mere recital of names or statutory language was insufficient, and one director was not shown to be in office during the relevant period. The penalties against the directors were therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2019 08:13:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1517 - ATFEMA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377496</link>
      <description>Penalty for non-realisation of export proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be sustained where the exporter had obtained extension of time for Iraqi export receipts and waiver applications for other outstanding amounts were still pending; on that basis, adjudication was premature and the company penalty was set aside. Personal penalties on directors also failed because vicarious liability under section 68 required specific pleadings and material showing that each director was in charge of, and responsible for, the company&#039;s export business and the non-realisation in question. Mere recital of names or statutory language was insufficient, and one director was not shown to be in office during the relevant period. The penalties against the directors were therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>