<?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>1996 (11) TMI 494 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457853</link>
    <description>Penalties for alleged contravention of foreign exchange restrictions were found unsustainable where the record did not prove any payment to non-residents in return for NRE cheques. Mere receipt of NRE cheques, even coupled with rejection of a gift explanation and surrounding circumstances, was insufficient without supporting evidence of the prohibited transaction. Reliance on the Reserve Bank of India notification was rejected because the exemption did not extend to the alleged contravention under section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. As the primary contravention was not established, the consequential finding of abetment under section 64(2) also could not stand, and the penalties were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Sep 2024 16:20:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 494 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457853</link>
      <description>Penalties for alleged contravention of foreign exchange restrictions were found unsustainable where the record did not prove any payment to non-residents in return for NRE cheques. Mere receipt of NRE cheques, even coupled with rejection of a gift explanation and surrounding circumstances, was insufficient without supporting evidence of the prohibited transaction. Reliance on the Reserve Bank of India notification was rejected because the exemption did not extend to the alleged contravention under section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. As the primary contravention was not established, the consequential finding of abetment under section 64(2) also could not stand, and the penalties were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>