https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457791 Contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld, but the penalty was reduced because the appellant came forward without pressing legal defences, sought substantial justice, and had already deposited part of the amount. On those facts, the original penalty was treated as excessive and was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000 while the finding of contravention remained unchanged. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457791 Contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld, but the penalty was reduced because the appellant came forward without pressing legal defences, sought substantial justice, and had already deposited part of the amount. On those facts, the original penalty was treated as excessive and was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 25,000 while the finding of contravention remained unchanged. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457791