<?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>2008 (11) TMI 753 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457434</link>
    <description>A retracted confession may be relied on where it is shown to be voluntary and true and is corroborated by surrounding material, including recovered documents and supporting statements; on that basis, the finding of contravention and penalty was sustained. The allegation of threat or coercion was treated as an unsupported assertion insufficient to displace the statement&#039;s reliability. Denial of cross-examination did not invalidate the adjudication because the right is not absolute and the appellant failed to show that such opportunity was necessary or that prejudice resulted. The penalty order was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:47:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 753 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457434</link>
      <description>A retracted confession may be relied on where it is shown to be voluntary and true and is corroborated by surrounding material, including recovered documents and supporting statements; on that basis, the finding of contravention and penalty was sustained. The allegation of threat or coercion was treated as an unsupported assertion insufficient to displace the statement&#039;s reliability. Denial of cross-examination did not invalidate the adjudication because the right is not absolute and the appellant failed to show that such opportunity was necessary or that prejudice resulted. The penalty order was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>