<?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 (9) TMI 628 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457572</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld charges against the appellant for unauthorized foreign exchange transactions, failure to realize foreign exchange, and purchasing gold with foreign exchange proceeds, confirming violations of the FEM Act, 1999. However, charges concerning alleged activities in Bangladesh and China lacked evidence and were dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed, granting a partial penalty refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 17:41:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 628 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457572</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld charges against the appellant for unauthorized foreign exchange transactions, failure to realize foreign exchange, and purchasing gold with foreign exchange proceeds, confirming violations of the FEM Act, 1999. However, charges concerning alleged activities in Bangladesh and China lacked evidence and were dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed, granting a partial penalty refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457572</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>