https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457957 Indian citizens who returned to India and stayed there during the relevant period were treated as persons in and resident in India, so liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was attracted and the contraventions were established. The tribunal rejected the plea that their status was non-resident, noting that section 14 applied to persons in or resident in India. It also held that the penalties were neither excessive nor disproportionate, as the breaches were not merely technical and the amounts involved justified the sanctions. The adjudication order was sustained and the appeals failed. en-us Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457957 Indian citizens who returned to India and stayed there during the relevant period were treated as persons in and resident in India, so liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was attracted and the contraventions were established. The tribunal rejected the plea that their status was non-resident, noting that section 14 applied to persons in or resident in India. It also held that the penalties were neither excessive nor disproportionate, as the breaches were not merely technical and the amounts involved justified the sanctions. The adjudication order was sustained and the appeals failed. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457957