<?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 739 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457672</link>
    <description>Reasonable and sincere efforts to realise export proceeds can defeat a charge of contravention under section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The tribunal found that the appellant had produced correspondence, telephone records, personal visits to the foreign buyer, and banker-related steps seeking extension of time, together with later recovery efforts after the buyer&#039;s financial failure and bankruptcy. These materials showed bona fide and persistent attempts to recover the dues, not inaction or indifference. On that evidence, the allegation that no serious effort had been made was unsupported, so the contravention was not made out and the penalty could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 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=770413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 739 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457672</link>
      <description>Reasonable and sincere efforts to realise export proceeds can defeat a charge of contravention under section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The tribunal found that the appellant had produced correspondence, telephone records, personal visits to the foreign buyer, and banker-related steps seeking extension of time, together with later recovery efforts after the buyer&#039;s financial failure and bankruptcy. These materials showed bona fide and persistent attempts to recover the dues, not inaction or indifference. On that evidence, the allegation that no serious effort had been made was unsupported, so the contravention was not made out and the penalty could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>