<?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>1989 (7) TMI 349 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457967</link>
    <description>Where foreign exchange is held abroad under a genuine contingent arrangement, no contravention of exchange-control law arises until the person obtains present title or control. On those facts, the commission amount was not immediately due, the appellant had only a contingent right, and there was no acquisition or transfer of foreign exchange in breach of the law. The duty to offer foreign exchange for sale to an authorised dealer also arose only when the appellant obtained a real right of disposal, so no default under the surrender requirement was established. The anti-evasion provision was likewise inapplicable because the agreement was not a device to defeat the statutory scheme.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1989 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=771379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (7) TMI 349 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457967</link>
      <description>Where foreign exchange is held abroad under a genuine contingent arrangement, no contravention of exchange-control law arises until the person obtains present title or control. On those facts, the commission amount was not immediately due, the appellant had only a contingent right, and there was no acquisition or transfer of foreign exchange in breach of the law. The duty to offer foreign exchange for sale to an authorised dealer also arose only when the appellant obtained a real right of disposal, so no default under the surrender requirement was established. The anti-evasion provision was likewise inapplicable because the agreement was not a device to defeat the statutory scheme.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>