<?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>2005 (7) TMI 737 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457674</link>
    <description>Foreign exchange remittances were found to be duly correlated with the record, including an RBI waiver for identified payments and confirmation from the authorised bank that the bill of entry and exchange control copy had been received for the remaining remittance. On that basis, the obligation to import goods and furnish proof of import was treated as satisfied. The only remaining lapse was non-filing of the exchange control copy and bill of entry, which was treated as a technical violation rather than a substantive contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Accordingly, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:20:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 737 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457674</link>
      <description>Foreign exchange remittances were found to be duly correlated with the record, including an RBI waiver for identified payments and confirmation from the authorised bank that the bill of entry and exchange control copy had been received for the remaining remittance. On that basis, the obligation to import goods and furnish proof of import was treated as satisfied. The only remaining lapse was non-filing of the exchange control copy and bill of entry, which was treated as a technical violation rather than a substantive contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Accordingly, the penalty was held unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>