<?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 737 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457437</link>
    <description>Delay, limitation under FEMA/FERA, and procedural objections did not invalidate the adjudication because the notice was issued within time and no acquiescence or waiver was shown. The bank, as an authorised dealer, was required to follow RBI directions and verify that foreign currency deposits in the NRE account complied with the governing conditions; its repeated acceptance of deposits when the account holder was not in India supported breach of statutory duty and abetment. The plea of issue estoppel failed because the earlier matter did not bar the present proceedings. For the individual appellant, mens rea was not a complete defence in this regulatory setting, and the penalties were upheld as not excessive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 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=769240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 737 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457437</link>
      <description>Delay, limitation under FEMA/FERA, and procedural objections did not invalidate the adjudication because the notice was issued within time and no acquiescence or waiver was shown. The bank, as an authorised dealer, was required to follow RBI directions and verify that foreign currency deposits in the NRE account complied with the governing conditions; its repeated acceptance of deposits when the account holder was not in India supported breach of statutory duty and abetment. The plea of issue estoppel failed because the earlier matter did not bar the present proceedings. For the individual appellant, mens rea was not a complete defence in this regulatory setting, and the penalties were upheld as not excessive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>