https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457919 Contravention under section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires reliable proof that the person owned and held foreign exchange; a disputed credit note, whose genuineness is unproved, cannot alone establish that charge. A mere right to receive foreign exchange may fall within section 16(1)(a), but differs from ownership or holding for section 14. The section 14 allegation was therefore unproved. The alleged receipt from Lloyd Steel Industries also could not support a charge under section 9(1)(f)(i), because the corresponding payment was not proved. Both charges were unsustainable, and relief from the penalty followed. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Sep 2024 20:24:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457919 Contravention under section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 requires reliable proof that the person owned and held foreign exchange; a disputed credit note, whose genuineness is unproved, cannot alone establish that charge. A mere right to receive foreign exchange may fall within section 16(1)(a), but differs from ownership or holding for section 14. The section 14 allegation was therefore unproved. The alleged receipt from Lloyd Steel Industries also could not support a charge under section 9(1)(f)(i), because the corresponding payment was not proved. Both charges were unsustainable, and relief from the penalty followed. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 17 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457919