https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457793 A finding of contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot be sustained on unreliable seized material where the alleged recovery itself is not credibly established. The clarification from the Enforcement Officer undermined the claimed seizure, the envelope and contents did not reliably link the appellant to the transaction, and the other statements did not independently corroborate the alleged violations. The contravention findings were therefore set aside. On confiscation, the cash amount could not stand because no proved linkage to a contravention was shown, so that confiscation was set aside, while the bank drafts were retained since they were disowned by the appellant. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 15:36:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457793 A finding of contravention under section 9(1)(b) and section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 cannot be sustained on unreliable seized material where the alleged recovery itself is not credibly established. The clarification from the Enforcement Officer undermined the claimed seizure, the envelope and contents did not reliably link the appellant to the transaction, and the other statements did not independently corroborate the alleged violations. The contravention findings were therefore set aside. On confiscation, the cash amount could not stand because no proved linkage to a contravention was shown, so that confiscation was set aside, while the bank drafts were retained since they were disowned by the appellant. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457793