<?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 738 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457673</link>
    <description>Natural justice challenge failed where notice of hearing was served, an adjournment had already been granted, and the appellant did not avail the further opportunity to appear or cross-examine; repeated adjournments were not a right. A retracted statement could still support adjudication if voluntary and not shown to be vitiated, and a criminal acquittal based on Evidence Act standards did not bind the adjudicatory forum. Contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) was upheld, but the penalty was moderated because the amount involved was not independently established with sufficient certainty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 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=770412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 738 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457673</link>
      <description>Natural justice challenge failed where notice of hearing was served, an adjournment had already been granted, and the appellant did not avail the further opportunity to appear or cross-examine; repeated adjournments were not a right. A retracted statement could still support adjudication if voluntary and not shown to be vitiated, and a criminal acquittal based on Evidence Act standards did not bind the adjudicatory forum. Contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) was upheld, but the penalty was moderated because the amount involved was not independently established with sufficient certainty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>