https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457498 Contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 was found proved on the basis of seized documents, witness admissions linking the appellant to hawala transactions, handwriting confirmation by the Government Examiner, and cash recovery supported by the panchnama. The appellant's explanation was rejected. The tribunal noted that in a quasi-criminal matter, cogent circumstances may discharge the evidentiary burden without mathematical precision. The penalty and confiscation order were therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:58:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457498 Contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 was found proved on the basis of seized documents, witness admissions linking the appellant to hawala transactions, handwriting confirmation by the Government Examiner, and cash recovery supported by the panchnama. The appellant's explanation was rejected. The tribunal noted that in a quasi-criminal matter, cogent circumstances may discharge the evidentiary burden without mathematical precision. The penalty and confiscation order were therefore upheld. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457498