https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386690 Abetment of a foreign exchange contravention was not established where cheques were cleared in the ordinary course of banking and later credited to a non-resident account. The Tribunal held that liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Exchange Control Manual required intentional aid, instigation, or conspiratorial participation, and that mere clearance of cheques, absent proof of knowledge that the proceeds would be remitted abroad, did not satisfy that test. The absence of Form A3 and the later movement of funds outside India, without more, showed at most negligence in banking procedure. The penalties therefore could not be sustained and the common adjudication order was set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2019 07:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386690 Abetment of a foreign exchange contravention was not established where cheques were cleared in the ordinary course of banking and later credited to a non-resident account. The Tribunal held that liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Exchange Control Manual required intentional aid, instigation, or conspiratorial participation, and that mere clearance of cheques, absent proof of knowledge that the proceeds would be remitted abroad, did not satisfy that test. The absence of Form A3 and the later movement of funds outside India, without more, showed at most negligence in banking procedure. The penalties therefore could not be sustained and the common adjudication order was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386690