https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457756 Liability under section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 required a clear acknowledgement of an existing debt. The tribunal found no overt act by the appellant showing such acknowledgement, and held that a mere stated intention to reciprocate gifts from a relative did not establish a debt or its admission. The appellant's declaration of the gift items to customs and payment of duty were treated as consistent with the absence of any dishonest or unlawful design. On that footing, the contravention charge was not made out, the penalty order was set aside, and the deposited amount was directed to be refunded. en-us Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457756 Liability under section 9(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 required a clear acknowledgement of an existing debt. The tribunal found no overt act by the appellant showing such acknowledgement, and held that a mere stated intention to reciprocate gifts from a relative did not establish a debt or its admission. The appellant's declaration of the gift items to customs and payment of duty were treated as consistent with the absence of any dishonest or unlawful design. On that footing, the contravention charge was not made out, the penalty order was set aside, and the deposited amount was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457756