https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457433 A foreign remittance made before RBI permission, and for the importer's benefit in discharge of its contractual liability, was treated as an unauthorised acquisition or transfer of foreign currency under section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The surrounding facts supported an implied agency, so the payment was regarded as made on behalf of the appellants and the statutory prohibition was attracted. The director, being in charge of and responsible for the company at the relevant time, was also liable for penalty under section 23C(1) on a vicarious-liability basis once the company's contravention was established. en-us Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:47:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457433 A foreign remittance made before RBI permission, and for the importer's benefit in discharge of its contractual liability, was treated as an unauthorised acquisition or transfer of foreign currency under section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The surrounding facts supported an implied agency, so the payment was regarded as made on behalf of the appellants and the statutory prohibition was attracted. The director, being in charge of and responsible for the company at the relevant time, was also liable for penalty under section 23C(1) on a vicarious-liability basis once the company's contravention was established. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457433