<?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>2024 (9) TMI 561 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758317</link>
    <description>Conversion of non-convertible funds into convertible funds without prior Reserve Bank of India permission was treated as a proven foreign exchange contravention, and the later return of the funds did not cure the original default. The conduct was not regarded as a mere inadvertent error, though the matter was confined to negligence on the facts and prior High Court direction. The objection that the adjudicating authority acted as judge in its own cause was rejected because it proceeded on the material before it and followed the prescribed procedure. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because it was found disproportionate to the nature of the default and the limited culpability established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:39:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 561 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758317</link>
      <description>Conversion of non-convertible funds into convertible funds without prior Reserve Bank of India permission was treated as a proven foreign exchange contravention, and the later return of the funds did not cure the original default. The conduct was not regarded as a mere inadvertent error, though the matter was confined to negligence on the facts and prior High Court direction. The objection that the adjudicating authority acted as judge in its own cause was rejected because it proceeded on the material before it and followed the prescribed procedure. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because it was found disproportionate to the nature of the default and the limited culpability established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>