<?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 (6) TMI 645 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457538</link>
    <description>A retracted inculpatory statement may still be relied on in foreign exchange contravention proceedings if it is voluntary, true and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. The tribunal treated the recovered currency, the contemporaneous admission and the supporting facts as sufficient proof of contravention. The retraction made after 37 days, without evidence of coercion or threat, was not accepted as prompt or credible and did not erase the statement&#039;s evidentiary value. The tribunal also held that the department must prove guilt to a prudent and reasonable degree, and that unexplained facts within the person proceeded against&#039;s special knowledge can justify an adverse inference. On these principles, the penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 645 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457538</link>
      <description>A retracted inculpatory statement may still be relied on in foreign exchange contravention proceedings if it is voluntary, true and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. The tribunal treated the recovered currency, the contemporaneous admission and the supporting facts as sufficient proof of contravention. The retraction made after 37 days, without evidence of coercion or threat, was not accepted as prompt or credible and did not erase the statement&#039;s evidentiary value. The tribunal also held that the department must prove guilt to a prudent and reasonable degree, and that unexplained facts within the person proceeded against&#039;s special knowledge can justify an adverse inference. On these principles, the penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457538</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>