https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457733 Penalties for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were set aside because the relied-upon material did not independently establish the alleged receipt and disbursement of foreign exchange, and the finding depended materially on statements not included in the show-cause notice record. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 and confiscation of the seized currency under section 9(1)(d) read with section 64(2) were sustained because the seizure was undisputed, the explanation was inconsistent and unsupported, and quasi-judicial adjudication does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457733 Penalties for alleged contravention of section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were set aside because the relied-upon material did not independently establish the alleged receipt and disbursement of foreign exchange, and the finding depended materially on statements not included in the show-cause notice record. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 and confiscation of the seized currency under section 9(1)(d) read with section 64(2) were sustained because the seizure was undisputed, the explanation was inconsistent and unsupported, and quasi-judicial adjudication does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457733