https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457959 Possession of foreign exchange beyond the statutory threshold was held unlawful where the possessor failed to prove lawful acquisition under the burden cast by section 71(3); a belated retraction, unsupported by the record, did not displace an earlier statement treated as voluntary and reliable. The charge under section 8(2) failed because the record did not establish the authorised exchange rate at the relevant time, leaving an essential ingredient unproved. Confiscation of the seized US $ 500 was maintained, but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 500 in view of the incomplete section 8(2) case and the appellant's physical handicap. en-us Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457959 Possession of foreign exchange beyond the statutory threshold was held unlawful where the possessor failed to prove lawful acquisition under the burden cast by section 71(3); a belated retraction, unsupported by the record, did not displace an earlier statement treated as voluntary and reliable. The charge under section 8(2) failed because the record did not establish the authorised exchange rate at the relevant time, leaving an essential ingredient unproved. Confiscation of the seized US $ 500 was maintained, but the penalty was reduced to Rs. 500 in view of the incomplete section 8(2) case and the appellant's physical handicap. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 20 Oct 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457959