https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457390 The Tribunal held that abetment of contravention of the foreign exchange restriction on making payments to or for the credit of persons resident outside India was proved, relying on the appellant's statement, corroborating employee evidence, and admissions by recipients of amounts routed through NRE accounts. It accepted the retracted confession because no proof of coercion was shown, applied circumstantial evidence principles, and drew adverse inference from matters within the appellant's special knowledge; the lack of cross-examination did not displace the evidence on these facts. The Tribunal also found the penalty excessive in light of the appellant's intermediary role and the transaction circumstances, and reduced it to the amount already pre-deposited. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Sep 2024 16:50:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457390 The Tribunal held that abetment of contravention of the foreign exchange restriction on making payments to or for the credit of persons resident outside India was proved, relying on the appellant's statement, corroborating employee evidence, and admissions by recipients of amounts routed through NRE accounts. It accepted the retracted confession because no proof of coercion was shown, applied circumstantial evidence principles, and drew adverse inference from matters within the appellant's special knowledge; the lack of cross-examination did not displace the evidence on these facts. The Tribunal also found the penalty excessive in light of the appellant's intermediary role and the transaction circumstances, and reduced it to the amount already pre-deposited. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457390