https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457758 Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act required affirmative proof that the receipt was made on the instruction of a person resident outside India; an uncorroborated statement and a mere draft payment were insufficient to establish the necessary non-resident nexus. Section 9(1)(d) covered payments made by order or on behalf of a non-resident, and the payment of customs duty for a non-resident son-in-law fell within that provision even though it was made in Indian rupees and no foreign exchange was involved. The text states that the first charge failed, while the second contravention was sustained with a reduced penalty. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457758 Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act required affirmative proof that the receipt was made on the instruction of a person resident outside India; an uncorroborated statement and a mere draft payment were insufficient to establish the necessary non-resident nexus. Section 9(1)(d) covered payments made by order or on behalf of a non-resident, and the payment of customs duty for a non-resident son-in-law fell within that provision even though it was made in Indian rupees and no foreign exchange was involved. The text states that the first charge failed, while the second contravention was sustained with a reduced penalty. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 25 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457758