<?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>2003 (5) TMI 544 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457717</link>
    <description>An exporter does not commit contravention merely because export proceeds remain unrealised and RBI permission was not obtained within time, where the record shows bona fide recovery efforts, correspondence with foreign buyers, a recovery suit in the USA and ECGC cover. On those materials, the alleged default was not established against the company. Penalties on the company and its directors also could not stand, because the Tribunal accepted the legal position that section 68 did not apply to penalty proceedings under section 50, and the foundation of the adjudication was unsustainable in fact and law. The penalties were quashed in entirety.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 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=770682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 544 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457717</link>
      <description>An exporter does not commit contravention merely because export proceeds remain unrealised and RBI permission was not obtained within time, where the record shows bona fide recovery efforts, correspondence with foreign buyers, a recovery suit in the USA and ECGC cover. On those materials, the alleged default was not established against the company. Penalties on the company and its directors also could not stand, because the Tribunal accepted the legal position that section 68 did not apply to penalty proceedings under section 50, and the foundation of the adjudication was unsustainable in fact and law. The penalties were quashed in entirety.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>