https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457835 Contravention under foreign exchange law was treated differently on the two sets of facts. Where foreign currency was recovered from the appellant's son, the finding could not stand because the only reliance was on retracted confessional material and there was no independent corroboration linking the appellant to the seizure. By contrast, where the appellant himself was found in possession of Saudi Riyals 5,500, his unsupported explanation was rejected and the possession was held to amount to contravention because lawful entitlement was not proved. The commentary therefore draws a clear distinction between unsupported attribution of seized currency to an appellant and unexplained personal possession of foreign currency. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:58:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457835 Contravention under foreign exchange law was treated differently on the two sets of facts. Where foreign currency was recovered from the appellant's son, the finding could not stand because the only reliance was on retracted confessional material and there was no independent corroboration linking the appellant to the seizure. By contrast, where the appellant himself was found in possession of Saudi Riyals 5,500, his unsupported explanation was rejected and the possession was held to amount to contravention because lawful entitlement was not proved. The commentary therefore draws a clear distinction between unsupported attribution of seized currency to an appellant and unexplained personal possession of foreign currency. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 15 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457835