https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758316 Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were treated as admissible material in FERA adjudication where they concerned the same transaction and were supported by surrounding evidence, because adjudicatory use was distinguished from criminal proof. A belated or unproved retraction did not automatically displace that reliance, especially where corroborative material existed, including seizure and other persons' statements. On the facts, the record was found to establish contravention of Section 8(1) and Section 9(1)(a) of FERA through acquisition, routing and delivery of foreign currency without permission. Objections based on non-service of notice and the alleged sunset period were also rejected. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Sep 2024 11:28:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758316 Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act were treated as admissible material in FERA adjudication where they concerned the same transaction and were supported by surrounding evidence, because adjudicatory use was distinguished from criminal proof. A belated or unproved retraction did not automatically displace that reliance, especially where corroborative material existed, including seizure and other persons' statements. On the facts, the record was found to establish contravention of Section 8(1) and Section 9(1)(a) of FERA through acquisition, routing and delivery of foreign currency without permission. Objections based on non-service of notice and the alleged sunset period were also rejected. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758316