<?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>2001 (6) TMI 841 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457809</link>
    <description>Failure to realise export proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not amount to contravention where the record showed continuous follow-up with the shipping agent and the new buyer to prevent auction of the goods. Permission from the Reserve Bank of India for a 30% discount and extension of time supported the appellant&#039;s bona fides, and the balance amount had already been adjusted towards insurance and service charges, leaving no further sum payable. On these facts, the appellant was treated as having taken all reasonable steps to realise the sale proceeds and avoid auction, so no contravention under section 18(2) or section 18(3) was found and the penalty was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 16:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770895" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 841 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457809</link>
      <description>Failure to realise export proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not amount to contravention where the record showed continuous follow-up with the shipping agent and the new buyer to prevent auction of the goods. Permission from the Reserve Bank of India for a 30% discount and extension of time supported the appellant&#039;s bona fides, and the balance amount had already been adjusted towards insurance and service charges, leaving no further sum payable. On these facts, the appellant was treated as having taken all reasonable steps to realise the sale proceeds and avoid auction, so no contravention under section 18(2) or section 18(3) was found and the penalty was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>