https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457877 Abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be sustained where the recorded facts did not show any proved contravention by the principal offender and the appellant's role only related to an authorised intermediary remittance. Liability for alleged non-repatriation of commission earnings also failed because the factual basis was incomplete: the commission actually earned, contractual rate, imports, and remittances received were not properly determined, and additional remittances and bank certificates were not adequately considered. On that material, the charges under sections 9(1)(a), 16(1)(a), 64(2), and 68(1) were not established, and the penalty order could not stand. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 12:33:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457877 Abetment under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could not be sustained where the recorded facts did not show any proved contravention by the principal offender and the appellant's role only related to an authorised intermediary remittance. Liability for alleged non-repatriation of commission earnings also failed because the factual basis was incomplete: the commission actually earned, contractual rate, imports, and remittances received were not properly determined, and additional remittances and bank certificates were not adequately considered. On that material, the charges under sections 9(1)(a), 16(1)(a), 64(2), and 68(1) were not established, and the penalty order could not stand. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 21 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457877