<?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 (8) TMI 1040 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457473</link>
    <description>A retracted confessional statement can sustain liability when it is voluntary and independently corroborated by other statements and documentary material. On the facts, the Tribunal found payment was made on instructions of a person resident outside India, proving contravention of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It also held that the appellant&#039;s admitted participation, knowledge of the import arrangement, and corroborative evidence established intentional aid and direct nexus with under-invoiced imports, proving abetment of contraventions under sections 8(3), 8(4) read with section 64(2). The penalty was upheld as proportionate to the proved misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:16:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 1040 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457473</link>
      <description>A retracted confessional statement can sustain liability when it is voluntary and independently corroborated by other statements and documentary material. On the facts, the Tribunal found payment was made on instructions of a person resident outside India, proving contravention of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. It also held that the appellant&#039;s admitted participation, knowledge of the import arrangement, and corroborative evidence established intentional aid and direct nexus with under-invoiced imports, proving abetment of contraventions under sections 8(3), 8(4) read with section 64(2). The penalty was upheld as proportionate to the proved misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>