https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457648 Discrepancy between two same-day import quotations was not explained by the appellant, because the lower quotation contained handwritten additions and the appellant produced no proper arithmetic reconciliation or supporting correspondence to show that it reflected the true revised price. Since the true import price was a matter specially within the appellant's knowledge, the burden of explaining the inconsistency rested on it, and unsupported assertions of revision were insufficient. The alleged contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was therefore upheld, the penalty was sustained, and the adjudication order remained in force. en-us Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:48:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457648 Discrepancy between two same-day import quotations was not explained by the appellant, because the lower quotation contained handwritten additions and the appellant produced no proper arithmetic reconciliation or supporting correspondence to show that it reflected the true revised price. Since the true import price was a matter specially within the appellant's knowledge, the burden of explaining the inconsistency rested on it, and unsupported assertions of revision were insufficient. The alleged contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was therefore upheld, the penalty was sustained, and the adjudication order remained in force. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457648