<?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>1998 (1) TMI 540 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457834</link>
    <description>Non-resident status under foreign exchange law is determined by the statutory definition of residence in India; once a person falls within any prescribed category of non-residence, further inquiry into intention to stay abroad is unnecessary. On the evidence of foreign employment, visa, and residence records, the appellant was treated as a person resident outside India. Where governing notifications permit carriage of foreign currency within the prescribed limit, lawful import may be accepted for shifting the burden, and the department must then prove unlawful acquisition by admissible evidence. Bare allegation of black market purchase was insufficient, so seizure, penalty, and confiscation were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2024 10:58:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 540 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457834</link>
      <description>Non-resident status under foreign exchange law is determined by the statutory definition of residence in India; once a person falls within any prescribed category of non-residence, further inquiry into intention to stay abroad is unnecessary. On the evidence of foreign employment, visa, and residence records, the appellant was treated as a person resident outside India. Where governing notifications permit carriage of foreign currency within the prescribed limit, lawful import may be accepted for shifting the burden, and the department must then prove unlawful acquisition by admissible evidence. Bare allegation of black market purchase was insufficient, so seizure, penalty, and confiscation were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>