https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457856 Liability under section 68(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect in relation to the specific contravention; mere managerial control or general supervision is insufficient. On the facts, the manager was not shown to have participated in, directed, or neglected the receipt of Indian currency from foreign customers, so liability and penalty could not be sustained. By contrast, the person who personally received the payment was properly found to have contravened the provision, but the penalty was set aside in view of the business practice, the absence of deliberate personal gain, and the fact that the company had already been penalised. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:20:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457856 Liability under section 68(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires evidence of consent, connivance, or neglect in relation to the specific contravention; mere managerial control or general supervision is insufficient. On the facts, the manager was not shown to have participated in, directed, or neglected the receipt of Indian currency from foreign customers, so liability and penalty could not be sustained. By contrast, the person who personally received the payment was properly found to have contravened the provision, but the penalty was set aside in view of the business practice, the absence of deliberate personal gain, and the fact that the company had already been penalised. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 24 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457856