https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457905 A contravention under section 9(1)(b) could not be sustained because the section 40 statement was insufficiently corroborated, the surrounding circumstances did not reliably establish receipt of the amount from the alleged non-resident source, and the confiscation of the cash was therefore set aside. Under section 9(1)(d), circumstantial evidence was accepted for the alleged payment of Rs. 20,000, so that finding was upheld, but the separate allegation relating to Rs. 9,000 failed for want of proof that the draft was sent on instructions of a non-resident. The section 8(1) finding and confiscation of the foreign currency were maintained because the possessor did not discharge the burden under section 71(3) to show lawful possession. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:19:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457905 A contravention under section 9(1)(b) could not be sustained because the section 40 statement was insufficiently corroborated, the surrounding circumstances did not reliably establish receipt of the amount from the alleged non-resident source, and the confiscation of the cash was therefore set aside. Under section 9(1)(d), circumstantial evidence was accepted for the alleged payment of Rs. 20,000, so that finding was upheld, but the separate allegation relating to Rs. 9,000 failed for want of proof that the draft was sent on instructions of a non-resident. The section 8(1) finding and confiscation of the foreign currency were maintained because the possessor did not discharge the burden under section 71(3) to show lawful possession. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 29 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457905