<?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>2007 (9) TMI 724 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457559</link>
    <description>A retracted confession may sustain liability under foreign exchange law where it is voluntary and corroborated by independent documentary and circumstantial evidence. The Tribunal held that the maker of the statement bears the burden of proving inducement, threat, or coercion, and that burden was not discharged. The appellant&#039;s admission of receiving money in India on behalf of a person resident outside India, supported by the record, established contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The finding of contravention was upheld, and the penalty was sustained in principle, though reduced in amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 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=769982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 724 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457559</link>
      <description>A retracted confession may sustain liability under foreign exchange law where it is voluntary and corroborated by independent documentary and circumstantial evidence. The Tribunal held that the maker of the statement bears the burden of proving inducement, threat, or coercion, and that burden was not discharged. The appellant&#039;s admission of receiving money in India on behalf of a person resident outside India, supported by the record, established contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The finding of contravention was upheld, and the penalty was sustained in principle, though reduced in amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>