<?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 (9) TMI 1013 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457820</link>
    <description>Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, exporter liability for non-realisation of export proceeds arises only where all reasonable steps to recover payment were not taken; sustained correspondence with buyers, banks and government agencies, together with documentary proof of non-delivery, partial local-currency payment and pursuit of legal remedies, may rebut contravention under section 18(2). Penalties linked to section 68(1) cannot survive where the person proceeded against was not the person in charge of business, and findings under section 9(1)(a) and section 9(1)(c) must rest on the actual prohibited act and a legally effective agreement, subject to the implied requirement of RBI permission under section 47(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2024 21:11:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 1013 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457820</link>
      <description>Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, exporter liability for non-realisation of export proceeds arises only where all reasonable steps to recover payment were not taken; sustained correspondence with buyers, banks and government agencies, together with documentary proof of non-delivery, partial local-currency payment and pursuit of legal remedies, may rebut contravention under section 18(2). Penalties linked to section 68(1) cannot survive where the person proceeded against was not the person in charge of business, and findings under section 9(1)(a) and section 9(1)(c) must rest on the actual prohibited act and a legally effective agreement, subject to the implied requirement of RBI permission under section 47(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>