https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283518 Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were upheld as a valid basis for proceedings where the alleged conduct was treated as independent unauthorised foreign-exchange dealing, even though the appellant was employed by an authorised dealer. The absence of prescribed encashment certificates could be used as a circumstance to reject the appellant's explanation for the seized cash and foreign currency, without amounting to a separate unpled charge. The contention that any omission should have been dealt with only under Section 6(4) was also rejected, and the penalty order as affirmed in appeal remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:18:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283518 Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were upheld as a valid basis for proceedings where the alleged conduct was treated as independent unauthorised foreign-exchange dealing, even though the appellant was employed by an authorised dealer. The absence of prescribed encashment certificates could be used as a circumstance to reject the appellant's explanation for the seized cash and foreign currency, without amounting to a separate unpled charge. The contention that any omission should have been dealt with only under Section 6(4) was also rejected, and the penalty order as affirmed in appeal remained undisturbed. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283518