https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457686 The penalty for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 failed because the required compensatory payment in India was not proved. Although the case alleged foreign currency receipts in Hong Kong and corresponding payments in India, the documents and statements relied upon did not establish that any payment was actually made or arranged in India, to whom it was made, or in what amount and manner. The adjudication was based on inference and suspicion rather than legal evidence, so the contravention was not proved and the penalty could not be sustained. en-us Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457686 The penalty for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 failed because the required compensatory payment in India was not proved. Although the case alleged foreign currency receipts in Hong Kong and corresponding payments in India, the documents and statements relied upon did not establish that any payment was actually made or arranged in India, to whom it was made, or in what amount and manner. The adjudication was based on inference and suspicion rather than legal evidence, so the contravention was not proved and the penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457686