https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457888 Alleged contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was found not proved because the evidence did not establish over-invoicing. A lower-priced proforma invoice created suspicion, but other invoices showed similar scanners at the higher price and a proforma invoice addressed to the appellant reflected that same higher price before import. The letters relied on in adjudication did not support the over-invoicing theory and were consistent with the appellant's case, while the section 40 statements also did not advance the Department's position. The burden of proving breach was not discharged, so the penalty could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 17 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 13:51:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457888 Alleged contravention of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was found not proved because the evidence did not establish over-invoicing. A lower-priced proforma invoice created suspicion, but other invoices showed similar scanners at the higher price and a proforma invoice addressed to the appellant reflected that same higher price before import. The letters relied on in adjudication did not support the over-invoicing theory and were consistent with the appellant's case, while the section 40 statements also did not advance the Department's position. The burden of proving breach was not discharged, so the penalty could not be sustained. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 17 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457888