<?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>2009 (6) TMI 1031 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457403</link>
    <description>A retracted confession in foreign exchange adjudication may still be relied on when the retraction is unsupported by convincing particulars and the statement is corroborated by surrounding documentary and oral material. Loose chits were treated as admissible supporting material, and the proceedings were held not to be strictly governed by the Evidence Act. On the contravention issues, recovered currency, the appellant&#039;s admission, co-noticee statements, and recipient statements were viewed as mutually reinforcing evidence, and the Department was required to establish the case on reliable surrounding circumstances rather than mathematical precision. The alleged contraventions were treated as proved and the penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2024 18:24:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 1031 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457403</link>
      <description>A retracted confession in foreign exchange adjudication may still be relied on when the retraction is unsupported by convincing particulars and the statement is corroborated by surrounding documentary and oral material. Loose chits were treated as admissible supporting material, and the proceedings were held not to be strictly governed by the Evidence Act. On the contravention issues, recovered currency, the appellant&#039;s admission, co-noticee statements, and recipient statements were viewed as mutually reinforcing evidence, and the Department was required to establish the case on reliable surrounding circumstances rather than mathematical precision. The alleged contraventions were treated as proved and the penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>