https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457917 A penalty for abetment under FERA could not survive once the principal contravention order against the main noticee had already been set aside for lack of substantiating evidence. The appellate board held that the appellant's liability as an abettor depended on the existence of a sustainable underlying contravention under sections 8(3) and 8(4), read with section 64(2), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. With the foundation of the main charge removed, the basis for penal action against the appellant ceased to exist. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 10 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 17:00:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457917 A penalty for abetment under FERA could not survive once the principal contravention order against the main noticee had already been set aside for lack of substantiating evidence. The appellate board held that the appellant's liability as an abettor depended on the existence of a sustainable underlying contravention under sections 8(3) and 8(4), read with section 64(2), of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. With the foundation of the main charge removed, the basis for penal action against the appellant ceased to exist. The penalty was therefore unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 10 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457917