<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (12) TMI 432 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457904</link>
    <description>A custodial statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act was held unreliable where it was made in customs custody, coercion was raised at the earliest opportunity, and medical material supported involuntariness; without independent corroboration, it could not sustain a contravention under section 9(1)(d) of FERA, and that finding was set aside. A separate contravention under section 9(1)(b) was sustained because recovery of the amount from the appellant&#039;s premises provided independent support, but the penalty was reduced because the appellant was not the principal operator and the confiscation had already deprived the intended beneficiaries of the proceeds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:19:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 432 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457904</link>
      <description>A custodial statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act was held unreliable where it was made in customs custody, coercion was raised at the earliest opportunity, and medical material supported involuntariness; without independent corroboration, it could not sustain a contravention under section 9(1)(d) of FERA, and that finding was set aside. A separate contravention under section 9(1)(b) was sustained because recovery of the amount from the appellant&#039;s premises provided independent support, but the penalty was reduced because the appellant was not the principal operator and the confiscation had already deprived the intended beneficiaries of the proceeds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>