<?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 (10) TMI 251 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457902</link>
    <description>The tribunal imposed penalties under section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on two appellants for failing to realize export proceeds. The first appellant&#039;s penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000, while the second appellant&#039;s penalty was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intentional non-realization. Exoneration was granted for certain GRIs based on RBI permissions for write-offs. Detailed scrutiny of discrepancies and appellants&#039; recovery efforts was conducted, emphasizing the role of RBI permissions in exoneration. The tribunal&#039;s decision reflects a nuanced assessment of legal compliance and efforts to recover outstanding amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 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=771217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (10) TMI 251 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457902</link>
      <description>The tribunal imposed penalties under section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, on two appellants for failing to realize export proceeds. The first appellant&#039;s penalty was reduced to Rs. 2,50,000, while the second appellant&#039;s penalty was set aside due to insufficient evidence of intentional non-realization. Exoneration was granted for certain GRIs based on RBI permissions for write-offs. Detailed scrutiny of discrepancies and appellants&#039; recovery efforts was conducted, emphasizing the role of RBI permissions in exoneration. The tribunal&#039;s decision reflects a nuanced assessment of legal compliance and efforts to recover outstanding amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>