https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457727 Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as applicable to persons in India and residents in India, so the plea of non-resident status did not defeat liability. Contravention was upheld because foreign currency had been recovered, there was no reliable proof that it had been lawfully brought into India within permissible limits, and the defence failed to show due encashment or surrender under section 8(3). The unreversed customs confiscation order also weighed against the appellant, while the pre-deposit already made was considered in granting partial relief. The penalty was therefore reduced. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 16:42:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457727 Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as applicable to persons in India and residents in India, so the plea of non-resident status did not defeat liability. Contravention was upheld because foreign currency had been recovered, there was no reliable proof that it had been lawfully brought into India within permissible limits, and the defence failed to show due encashment or surrender under section 8(3). The unreversed customs confiscation order also weighed against the appellant, while the pre-deposit already made was considered in granting partial relief. The penalty was therefore reduced. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 04 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457727