https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457805 Material relied on to prove contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was found insufficient because the supporting statements were inconsistent and the appellant's statement had been retracted. A retracted statement required corroboration in material particulars, but the other person's statement did not clearly confirm that the appellant made the alleged payment in the manner asserted. As the contradictory versions were not satisfactorily reconciled, the evidentiary record did not meet the standard needed to establish the contravention, and the penalty finding could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 16:00:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457805 Material relied on to prove contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was found insufficient because the supporting statements were inconsistent and the appellant's statement had been retracted. A retracted statement required corroboration in material particulars, but the other person's statement did not clearly confirm that the appellant made the alleged payment in the manner asserted. As the contradictory versions were not satisfactorily reconciled, the evidentiary record did not meet the standard needed to establish the contravention, and the penalty finding could not be sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457805