https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754022 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld FERA contraventions against the appellant for instructing Indian banks to credit non-resident accounts through agency agreements with RBI-authorized dealers. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's denial of responsibility, finding intentional instigation and engagement in prohibited transactions. Under Section 59 of FERA 1973, the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to disprove culpable mental state, which it failed to discharge. The Tribunal established charges of abetment under Section 64(2) read with Sections 6(4), 6(5), and 49(i)(a) of FERA 1973. However, the Tribunal found the penalty amount disproportionate and substituted it with a reduced penalty to meet the ends of justice. en-us Tue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754022 The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA upheld FERA contraventions against the appellant for instructing Indian banks to credit non-resident accounts through agency agreements with RBI-authorized dealers. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's denial of responsibility, finding intentional instigation and engagement in prohibited transactions. Under Section 59 of FERA 1973, the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to disprove culpable mental state, which it failed to discharge. The Tribunal established charges of abetment under Section 64(2) read with Sections 6(4), 6(5), and 49(i)(a) of FERA 1973. However, the Tribunal found the penalty amount disproportionate and substituted it with a reduced penalty to meet the ends of justice. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 07 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754022