<?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>2006 (10) TMI 522 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457568</link>
    <description>A retracted confession can sustain liability where it is voluntary, found to be true, and materially corroborated by independent evidence. The tribunal found the appellant&#039;s admission of receiving foreign-sourced funds locally to be voluntary and supported by a letter recovered from her husband in Muscat and by surrounding circumstances. It rejected the later retraction as an afterthought and held that corroborative documentary and circumstantial material was sufficient to support the contravention under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty was upheld and the challenge to the adjudication order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:23:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 522 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457568</link>
      <description>A retracted confession can sustain liability where it is voluntary, found to be true, and materially corroborated by independent evidence. The tribunal found the appellant&#039;s admission of receiving foreign-sourced funds locally to be voluntary and supported by a letter recovered from her husband in Muscat and by surrounding circumstances. It rejected the later retraction as an afterthought and held that corroborative documentary and circumstantial material was sufficient to support the contravention under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty was upheld and the challenge to the adjudication order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>