<?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>1989 (7) TMI 344 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283519</link>
    <description>Foreign exchange credited abroad under a contingent commercial arrangement does not amount to acquisition or transfer by the claimant where it has no present dominion, title, or right of disposition until final contractual clearance. In that setting, the obligation to offer the foreign exchange for sale to an authorised dealer arises only when the claimant actually acquires and holds the funds within the statutory scheme. A charge of evasion under section 47 also cannot stand without an underlying contravention of sections 8(1) and 14, and a conditional arrangement with subsequent remittance through banking channels does not by itself establish an unlawful device.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:39:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (7) TMI 344 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283519</link>
      <description>Foreign exchange credited abroad under a contingent commercial arrangement does not amount to acquisition or transfer by the claimant where it has no present dominion, title, or right of disposition until final contractual clearance. In that setting, the obligation to offer the foreign exchange for sale to an authorised dealer arises only when the claimant actually acquires and holds the funds within the statutory scheme. A charge of evasion under section 47 also cannot stand without an underlying contravention of sections 8(1) and 14, and a conditional arrangement with subsequent remittance through banking channels does not by itself establish an unlawful device.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>