https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457667 Documentary proof of import and confirmation by the authorised dealer that the exchange control copies of bills of entry were received and forwarded to the RBI meant the alleged lapse was only procedural. On that basis, non-production or inability to co-relate the bills of entry with the remittances did not establish contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with the pre-deposit refundable. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 15:20:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457667 Documentary proof of import and confirmation by the authorised dealer that the exchange control copies of bills of entry were received and forwarded to the RBI meant the alleged lapse was only procedural. On that basis, non-production or inability to co-relate the bills of entry with the remittances did not establish contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded with the pre-deposit refundable. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457667