https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457954 The appellate body overturned the adjudicating authority's decision, finding insufficient evidence to support the appellant's alleged contravention of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The reliance on an uncorroborated statement without cross-examination was a procedural error. The penalty imposed on the partnership firm was deemed unsustainable due to a lack of individual culpability. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and any penalty paid was ordered to be refunded, underscoring the necessity for reliable evidence and adherence to procedural requirements in such cases. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2024 18:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457954 The appellate body overturned the adjudicating authority's decision, finding insufficient evidence to support the appellant's alleged contravention of section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The reliance on an uncorroborated statement without cross-examination was a procedural error. The penalty imposed on the partnership firm was deemed unsustainable due to a lack of individual culpability. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and any penalty paid was ordered to be refunded, underscoring the necessity for reliable evidence and adherence to procedural requirements in such cases. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 04 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457954