https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457788 Third-party documents and statements could not sustain a contravention charge where the maker was not jointly proceeded against, because the department had to prove the documents and provide an opportunity to cross-examine the maker before relying on the statement. The adjudication against one noticee was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, with the authority directed to consider whether the material disclosed any other contravention after notice. The charge against the other noticee under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 failed because the record did not prove receipt or payment on behalf of, or under the instructions of, a person resident outside India, and the order against him was set aside. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457788 Third-party documents and statements could not sustain a contravention charge where the maker was not jointly proceeded against, because the department had to prove the documents and provide an opportunity to cross-examine the maker before relying on the statement. The adjudication against one noticee was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication, with the authority directed to consider whether the material disclosed any other contravention after notice. The charge against the other noticee under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 failed because the record did not prove receipt or payment on behalf of, or under the instructions of, a person resident outside India, and the order against him was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 06 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457788