https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457802 Contravention under section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld because it was not seriously disputed and no basis was shown to disturb the finding. The penalty, however, was reduced because the amount involved was modest, parallel criminal prosecution had already taken place, and the adjudicatory sanction was considered disproportionate to the circumstances. The appellate board therefore retained the violation but substituted a token monetary penalty to achieve proportionality and the ends of justice. en-us Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:36:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457802 Contravention under section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was upheld because it was not seriously disputed and no basis was shown to disturb the finding. The penalty, however, was reduced because the amount involved was modest, parallel criminal prosecution had already taken place, and the adjudicatory sanction was considered disproportionate to the circumstances. The appellate board therefore retained the violation but substituted a token monetary penalty to achieve proportionality and the ends of justice. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 08 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457802