https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457692 Penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was set aside where the appellant had admitted receipt of funds through an unauthorised channel but the breach was found to be isolated and non-deliberate. The Tribunal held that penalty in foreign exchange proceedings is a matter of judicial discretion and should not be imposed mechanically. Because the appellant showed immediate admission, no conscious disregard of law, and no contumacious or dishonest conduct, the violation was treated as venial and pardonable. The finding of contravention was left intact, but the penalty was quashed. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457692 Penalty for contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was set aside where the appellant had admitted receipt of funds through an unauthorised channel but the breach was found to be isolated and non-deliberate. The Tribunal held that penalty in foreign exchange proceedings is a matter of judicial discretion and should not be imposed mechanically. Because the appellant showed immediate admission, no conscious disregard of law, and no contumacious or dishonest conduct, the violation was treated as venial and pardonable. The finding of contravention was left intact, but the penalty was quashed. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 22 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457692