https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387726 An authorised dealer was treated as a distinct class under FERA, and the Tribunal held that the general prohibitions in Sections 8 and 9 did not, on these facts, fasten liability for rupee credit entries in vostro accounts made through ordinary inter-bank banking channels. It further held that alleged breaches of Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 49, and of the Exchange Control Manual, did not justify penalties where the transactions were bona fide, amounts were repatriated, and no deliberate defiance or dishonest intent was shown. As to Section 68, the notices lacked specific foundational averments for vicarious or negligence-based liability, so the officer-wise penalties could not stand and the adjudication orders were set aside. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387726 An authorised dealer was treated as a distinct class under FERA, and the Tribunal held that the general prohibitions in Sections 8 and 9 did not, on these facts, fasten liability for rupee credit entries in vostro accounts made through ordinary inter-bank banking channels. It further held that alleged breaches of Sections 6(4), 6(5) and 49, and of the Exchange Control Manual, did not justify penalties where the transactions were bona fide, amounts were repatriated, and no deliberate defiance or dishonest intent was shown. As to Section 68, the notices lacked specific foundational averments for vicarious or negligence-based liability, so the officer-wise penalties could not stand and the adjudication orders were set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 20 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387726