<?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 (12) TMI 559 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457556</link>
    <description>Penalty for contravention of foreign exchange law was sustained against both a partnership firm and its managing partner where import-related amounts were adjusted without prior RBI permission. The managing partner was in charge of day-to-day business, and the statutory scheme imposing responsibility on persons in charge supported separate liability for the firm and the responsible partner. The argument that a partnership&#039;s collective character barred action against both was rejected, because the contravention and responsibility provisions permitted penalty on the entity and on the person controlling its business. The penalty on the managing partner was upheld along with the penalty on the firms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 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=769985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 559 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457556</link>
      <description>Penalty for contravention of foreign exchange law was sustained against both a partnership firm and its managing partner where import-related amounts were adjusted without prior RBI permission. The managing partner was in charge of day-to-day business, and the statutory scheme imposing responsibility on persons in charge supported separate liability for the firm and the responsible partner. The argument that a partnership&#039;s collective character barred action against both was rejected, because the contravention and responsibility provisions permitted penalty on the entity and on the person controlling its business. The penalty on the managing partner was upheld along with the penalty on the firms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>