https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457431 Contravention of foreign exchange restrictions under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA was found proved on circumstantial material, including seized records, the recovered chit, the linked telephone number, and the co-actor's statement showing receipt and distribution of payments on instructions from a person resident outside India. The appellant failed to explain the connection reflected in the record. Refusal of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings because no specific, substantiated request was shown. In economic legislation of this kind, the charge may be established on a prudent assessment of probabilities rather than mathematical certainty, and the penalty was upheld with the adjudication order sustained. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:11:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457431 Contravention of foreign exchange restrictions under Section 9(1)(b) of FERA was found proved on circumstantial material, including seized records, the recovered chit, the linked telephone number, and the co-actor's statement showing receipt and distribution of payments on instructions from a person resident outside India. The appellant failed to explain the connection reflected in the record. Refusal of cross-examination did not vitiate the proceedings because no specific, substantiated request was shown. In economic legislation of this kind, the charge may be established on a prudent assessment of probabilities rather than mathematical certainty, and the penalty was upheld with the adjudication order sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457431