<?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 1125 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457496</link>
    <description>Voluntary admissions supported by corroborative evidence may sustain liability under foreign exchange law even if later retracted. The tribunal treated the appellant&#039;s statement that he arranged an NRE draft and received money for a non-resident as voluntary, and found it corroborated by the recipient&#039;s statement and seized documents. The subsequent retraction was rejected because no material showed threat, coercion, or duress. On that basis, contravention of Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved and the penalty order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 1125 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457496</link>
      <description>Voluntary admissions supported by corroborative evidence may sustain liability under foreign exchange law even if later retracted. The tribunal treated the appellant&#039;s statement that he arranged an NRE draft and received money for a non-resident as voluntary, and found it corroborated by the recipient&#039;s statement and seized documents. The subsequent retraction was rejected because no material showed threat, coercion, or duress. On that basis, contravention of Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was proved and the penalty order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457496</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>