<?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>2004 (2) TMI 746 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457690</link>
    <description>Failure to realise export proceeds within the prescribed period under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 supported a finding of contravention where no timely application for extension was made and post-expiry follow-up was only belated or formal; the statutory presumption under section 18(3) remained unrebutted, so the violation was upheld. The decision nevertheless treated the absence of criminal intent and mens rea as mitigating factors in fixing penalty, and on that basis reduced the penalty substantially. The result was that liability for breach was maintained, while relief was granted only on the quantum of penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:44:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 746 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457690</link>
      <description>Failure to realise export proceeds within the prescribed period under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 supported a finding of contravention where no timely application for extension was made and post-expiry follow-up was only belated or formal; the statutory presumption under section 18(3) remained unrebutted, so the violation was upheld. The decision nevertheless treated the absence of criminal intent and mens rea as mitigating factors in fixing penalty, and on that basis reduced the penalty substantially. The result was that liability for breach was maintained, while relief was granted only on the quantum of penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>