<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2000 (1) TMI 1033 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457775</link>
    <description>Residence under the foreign exchange law turns on whether the surrounding circumstances objectively show an intention to stay in India for an uncertain period, not merely on the length of physical stay. On the facts noted, continued residence, non-renewal of passport after expiry, and family settlement in India supported resident status, making the failure to repatriate foreign balances a contravention. A notification for persons of Indian origin did not preserve foreign currency accounts abroad where its deeming provision treated such a person, on the stated facts, as permanently resident in India. The penalty was also upheld because the conduct showed no bona fide ignorance of law and the later repatriation did not erase the original breach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 13:22:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 1033 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457775</link>
      <description>Residence under the foreign exchange law turns on whether the surrounding circumstances objectively show an intention to stay in India for an uncertain period, not merely on the length of physical stay. On the facts noted, continued residence, non-renewal of passport after expiry, and family settlement in India supported resident status, making the failure to repatriate foreign balances a contravention. A notification for persons of Indian origin did not preserve foreign currency accounts abroad where its deeming provision treated such a person, on the stated facts, as permanently resident in India. The penalty was also upheld because the conduct showed no bona fide ignorance of law and the later repatriation did not erase the original breach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>