<?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>1999 (11) TMI 906 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457801</link>
    <description>Contravention of foreign exchange law based on alleged import payment could not be sustained without independent and competent evidence: the record contained only a manager&#039;s statement, while customs had accepted the invoice value and no material showed under-invoicing or foreign payment abroad, so the charge under section 9(1)(a) failed. By contrast, seized diary entries, expenditure accounts and cash memos supported a finding that foreign exchange was arranged and spent abroad without authorisation, so the section 8(1) contravention stood established. Because the material did not show regular illegal dealing and the circumstances warranted mitigation, the penalty on that charge was reduced by 50 per cent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:36:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770874" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 906 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457801</link>
      <description>Contravention of foreign exchange law based on alleged import payment could not be sustained without independent and competent evidence: the record contained only a manager&#039;s statement, while customs had accepted the invoice value and no material showed under-invoicing or foreign payment abroad, so the charge under section 9(1)(a) failed. By contrast, seized diary entries, expenditure accounts and cash memos supported a finding that foreign exchange was arranged and spent abroad without authorisation, so the section 8(1) contravention stood established. Because the material did not show regular illegal dealing and the circumstances warranted mitigation, the penalty on that charge was reduced by 50 per cent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>