<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1460 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457738</link>
    <description>Liability for a pre-dissolution export-control contravention survives dissolution of the firm, but an individual partner can be penalised only if the record proves actual responsibility for the firm&#039;s business affairs. The text also states that compliance with the duty to take reasonable steps to realise export proceeds requires timely, specific and substantiated action, including resort to the regulatory authority within the prescribed period; general correspondence or informal follow-up is insufficient. On the facts discussed, the contravention finding under section 18(3) was upheld, while the partner&#039;s penalty was set aside for lack of proof of responsibility and the firm&#039;s penalty was reduced on equitable considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1460 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457738</link>
      <description>Liability for a pre-dissolution export-control contravention survives dissolution of the firm, but an individual partner can be penalised only if the record proves actual responsibility for the firm&#039;s business affairs. The text also states that compliance with the duty to take reasonable steps to realise export proceeds requires timely, specific and substantiated action, including resort to the regulatory authority within the prescribed period; general correspondence or informal follow-up is insufficient. On the facts discussed, the contravention finding under section 18(3) was upheld, while the partner&#039;s penalty was set aside for lack of proof of responsibility and the firm&#039;s penalty was reduced on equitable considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>