https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457482 Receiving foreign-directed payments in India can constitute contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 when seized documents, co-noticee statements and the appellant's own admissions together show receipt otherwise than through an authorised dealer. A retracted inculpatory statement may still be acted upon if the retraction is unsupported and the statement appears voluntary, particularly where surrounding documentary and oral evidence corroborate it. Denial of cross-examination does not automatically vitiate proceedings when the material already sufficiently establishes the charge. On this reasoning, the evidence was treated as adequate and the penalty order was sustained. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2024 15:04:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457482 Receiving foreign-directed payments in India can constitute contravention of Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 when seized documents, co-noticee statements and the appellant's own admissions together show receipt otherwise than through an authorised dealer. A retracted inculpatory statement may still be acted upon if the retraction is unsupported and the statement appears voluntary, particularly where surrounding documentary and oral evidence corroborate it. Denial of cross-examination does not automatically vitiate proceedings when the material already sufficiently establishes the charge. On this reasoning, the evidence was treated as adequate and the penalty order was sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457482