https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81253 The appellate tribunal examined the penalty imposed on the company and individual for contravention of Section 6(3)(a) of FEMA and Regulations 5, 6, and 13 of the Regulations, 2000. The company had obtained RBI clearance but omitted particulars of step-down wholly-owned subsidiaries, which was found unintentional. RBI later approved closure of the subsidiary and repatriation. Considering the initial RBI permission, the penalty amount was found disproportionate. The penalty on the company was reduced from Rs. 70 lakhs to Rs. 35 lakhs, and on the individual from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs, considering the amount involved and reason for contravention. The reduction was based on peculiar facts and circumstances, not on proportionality grounds. The appellant did not press legal issues framed by the Bombay High Court, agreeing to adjudication only on the penalty amount. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2024 07:56:39 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2024 07:56:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81253 The appellate tribunal examined the penalty imposed on the company and individual for contravention of Section 6(3)(a) of FEMA and Regulations 5, 6, and 13 of the Regulations, 2000. The company had obtained RBI clearance but omitted particulars of step-down wholly-owned subsidiaries, which was found unintentional. RBI later approved closure of the subsidiary and repatriation. Considering the initial RBI permission, the penalty amount was found disproportionate. The penalty on the company was reduced from Rs. 70 lakhs to Rs. 35 lakhs, and on the individual from Rs. 28 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs, considering the amount involved and reason for contravention. The reduction was based on peculiar facts and circumstances, not on proportionality grounds. The appellant did not press legal issues framed by the Bombay High Court, agreeing to adjudication only on the penalty amount. Highlights FEMA Thu, 12 Sep 2024 07:56:39 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81253