<?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 (10) TMI 736 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457439</link>
    <description>Contravention of binding RBI conditions for sale of foreign exchange was established where a full-fledged money changer released foreign exchange and travellers cheques without passenger applications, identification, or proper documentation. Internal generation of BTQ applications, register entries, and passport endorsements did not cure the breach, because the regulatory requirements were not satisfied before release. The attempted defence that the currency remained in custody also failed, as preparation and attempt to contravene were themselves punishable under the foreign exchange regime. Liability arose on proof of statutory breach, and absence of mens rea did not defeat penalty where the scheme imposed a regulatory obligation and did not make intent an ingredient.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2024 17:38:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769238" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 736 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457439</link>
      <description>Contravention of binding RBI conditions for sale of foreign exchange was established where a full-fledged money changer released foreign exchange and travellers cheques without passenger applications, identification, or proper documentation. Internal generation of BTQ applications, register entries, and passport endorsements did not cure the breach, because the regulatory requirements were not satisfied before release. The attempted defence that the currency remained in custody also failed, as preparation and attempt to contravene were themselves punishable under the foreign exchange regime. Liability arose on proof of statutory breach, and absence of mens rea did not defeat penalty where the scheme imposed a regulatory obligation and did not make intent an ingredient.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457439</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>