https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457927 Exchange-control liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act depended on proof of the specific receipt, handling, or legally enforceable entitlement alleged. The material was insufficient to sustain contravention for Rs. 81,000, as the evidence did not connect that amount to the appellant; the charge for Rs. 65,000 also failed because the supporting statement was hearsay and the correspondence did not establish receipt by the relevant date. By contrast, contravention was sustained for Rs. 70,000 because receipt and onward delivery were admitted and corroborated. A separate charge under section 16(1)(b) failed because the record showed only a moral expectation of payment, not a legally enforceable right to receive telephone charges. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457927 Exchange-control liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act depended on proof of the specific receipt, handling, or legally enforceable entitlement alleged. The material was insufficient to sustain contravention for Rs. 81,000, as the evidence did not connect that amount to the appellant; the charge for Rs. 65,000 also failed because the supporting statement was hearsay and the correspondence did not establish receipt by the relevant date. By contrast, contravention was sustained for Rs. 70,000 because receipt and onward delivery were admitted and corroborated. A separate charge under section 16(1)(b) failed because the record showed only a moral expectation of payment, not a legally enforceable right to receive telephone charges. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457927