https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457907 A penalty for alleged contravention of FERA section 9(1)(b) could not be sustained because the record did not positively establish that the amounts received through drafts originating in India were transmitted in breach of the statutory prohibition. The surrounding material showed that similar amounts had on other occasions been sent through proper banking channels, and the origin of the drafts was not investigated to exclude lawful purchase of foreign exchange or lawful remittance. On this evidence, the charge was not proved, the appellant received the benefit of doubt, and the penalty order was set aside. en-us Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:19:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457907 A penalty for alleged contravention of FERA section 9(1)(b) could not be sustained because the record did not positively establish that the amounts received through drafts originating in India were transmitted in breach of the statutory prohibition. The surrounding material showed that similar amounts had on other occasions been sent through proper banking channels, and the origin of the drafts was not investigated to exclude lawful purchase of foreign exchange or lawful remittance. On this evidence, the charge was not proved, the appellant received the benefit of doubt, and the penalty order was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 21 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457907