https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457928 Foreign exchange contraventions under FERA were examined on three distinct bases: receipt of foreign remittances on behalf of family members was treated as supported by surrounding bank and investment records and the contravention finding under section 9(1)(b) was sustained; possession of a single US Dollar 50 note was held insufficient by itself to prove unlawful acquisition under section 8(1), so the penalty was set aside while confiscation was retained; and a charge under section 15 read with the relevant notifications could not be sustained on an uncorroborated statement alone, so that contravention and related penalty were withdrawn. The text emphasises that foreign exchange liability must rest on reliable proof, not mere possession or unverified allegations. en-us Mon, 20 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457928 Foreign exchange contraventions under FERA were examined on three distinct bases: receipt of foreign remittances on behalf of family members was treated as supported by surrounding bank and investment records and the contravention finding under section 9(1)(b) was sustained; possession of a single US Dollar 50 note was held insufficient by itself to prove unlawful acquisition under section 8(1), so the penalty was set aside while confiscation was retained; and a charge under section 15 read with the relevant notifications could not be sustained on an uncorroborated statement alone, so that contravention and related penalty were withdrawn. The text emphasises that foreign exchange liability must rest on reliable proof, not mere possession or unverified allegations. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 20 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457928