<?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 (7) TMI 1106 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457479</link>
    <description>The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act appeal scheme made pre-deposit of the penalty a mandatory filing condition, save for limited dispensation on undue hardship, so non-compliance rendered the affected appeals not maintainable. The special limitation regime required filing within forty-five days, with a maximum extension up to ninety days, and appeals filed beyond that outer limit were barred. On the merits, the statutory presumption against unexplained foreign exchange remittances for import purposes was not rebutted; the bill of entry and affidavit were treated as insufficient, and the RBI write-off did not undo the enforcement breach. The penalty findings were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 14:33:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1106 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457479</link>
      <description>The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act appeal scheme made pre-deposit of the penalty a mandatory filing condition, save for limited dispensation on undue hardship, so non-compliance rendered the affected appeals not maintainable. The special limitation regime required filing within forty-five days, with a maximum extension up to ninety days, and appeals filed beyond that outer limit were barred. On the merits, the statutory presumption against unexplained foreign exchange remittances for import purposes was not rebutted; the bill of entry and affidavit were treated as insufficient, and the RBI write-off did not undo the enforcement breach. The penalty findings were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>