https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457896 A proposed enhancement of a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be made unless the party was first heard on whether such a prejudicial modification was justified, not merely on the extent of the increase. Applying the protection against adverse modification with the hearing requirement under section 52, the appellate body held that the penalty was not liable to be enhanced. Although one finding of contravention failed and the amount involved was reduced, the circumstances did not justify a further reduction of the penalty already imposed. The seized amount could not continue to be withheld and was directed to be refunded. en-us Mon, 26 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 16:19:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457896 A proposed enhancement of a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be made unless the party was first heard on whether such a prejudicial modification was justified, not merely on the extent of the increase. Applying the protection against adverse modification with the hearing requirement under section 52, the appellate body held that the penalty was not liable to be enhanced. Although one finding of contravention failed and the amount involved was reduced, the circumstances did not justify a further reduction of the penalty already imposed. The seized amount could not continue to be withheld and was directed to be refunded. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 26 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457896