https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457782 Mere conscious possession of foreign exchange was held insufficient to prove that it had been "acquired" within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, where the appellant's explanation for holding the currency was not disproved. As the record did not establish unlawful acquisition, the penalty for contravention could not stand. On the same facts, confiscation was also unjustified because the seized currency was not shown to be illicitly acquired or otherwise liable to seizure. The operative principle is that possession alone does not satisfy the statutory ingredient of unlawful acquisition, and confiscation cannot rest on possession without supporting proof. en-us Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:22:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457782 Mere conscious possession of foreign exchange was held insufficient to prove that it had been "acquired" within the meaning of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, where the appellant's explanation for holding the currency was not disproved. As the record did not establish unlawful acquisition, the penalty for contravention could not stand. On the same facts, confiscation was also unjustified because the seized currency was not shown to be illicitly acquired or otherwise liable to seizure. The operative principle is that possession alone does not satisfy the statutory ingredient of unlawful acquisition, and confiscation cannot rest on possession without supporting proof. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457782