https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457428 The commentary explains that receipt of payment in India on instructions of a person resident outside India, without Reserve Bank permission, was treated as a contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It notes that a retracted inculpatory statement may still be relied on when supported by seized documents and surrounding circumstances, and that the breach was treated as a regulatory violation attracting liability without proof of guilty intention. The discussion also records that penalty may be moderated on equitable facts, including the appellant's status, the age of the matter, and prior adjustment of the amount from blocked funds. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:11:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457428 The commentary explains that receipt of payment in India on instructions of a person resident outside India, without Reserve Bank permission, was treated as a contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It notes that a retracted inculpatory statement may still be relied on when supported by seized documents and surrounding circumstances, and that the breach was treated as a regulatory violation attracting liability without proof of guilty intention. The discussion also records that penalty may be moderated on equitable facts, including the appellant's status, the age of the matter, and prior adjustment of the amount from blocked funds. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457428