https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457909 A penalty for alleged contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be sustained where the record lacked reliable proof of over-invoicing or that the books were of no worth. The adjudicating authority had relied on assumptions, incomplete correspondence, and statements under section 40 instead of primary documentary evidence to establish market price, while the appellants produced price lists, catalogues, and supporting material showing invoice values were consistent with or below market prices. Because the principal contravention was not proved on cogent evidence, the basis for invoking consequential vicarious liability of the directors under section 68(1) also failed. en-us Fri, 03 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 14:16:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457909 A penalty for alleged contravention of section 8(3) read with section 8(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be sustained where the record lacked reliable proof of over-invoicing or that the books were of no worth. The adjudicating authority had relied on assumptions, incomplete correspondence, and statements under section 40 instead of primary documentary evidence to establish market price, while the appellants produced price lists, catalogues, and supporting material showing invoice values were consistent with or below market prices. Because the principal contravention was not proved on cogent evidence, the basis for invoking consequential vicarious liability of the directors under section 68(1) also failed. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 03 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457909