<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (6) TMI 190 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457972</link>
    <description>Confiscation under section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is a discretionary power and is not automatic on proof of contravention. The Adjudicating Officer must record a separate, reasoned satisfaction that confiscation is warranted in addition to penalty. Where the only established breach was failure to return unutilised foreign exchange within the prescribed time under section 8(3), and the material showed no unlawful use or sale of the foreign exchange, confiscation could not be justified. The confiscation was therefore set aside, while the penalty for breach of section 8(3) was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (6) TMI 190 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457972</link>
      <description>Confiscation under section 63 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is a discretionary power and is not automatic on proof of contravention. The Adjudicating Officer must record a separate, reasoned satisfaction that confiscation is warranted in addition to penalty. Where the only established breach was failure to return unutilised foreign exchange within the prescribed time under section 8(3), and the material showed no unlawful use or sale of the foreign exchange, confiscation could not be justified. The confiscation was therefore set aside, while the penalty for breach of section 8(3) was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>