<?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 (7) TMI 359 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458008</link>
    <description>Contravention of export-proceeds repatriation rules depends on whether the exporter took timely and bona fide reasonable steps to recover payment and sought Reserve Bank extension before expiry or promptly thereafter. Mere eventual recovery, or a bare assertion of difficulty, does not by itself negate breach. On the record, the charge was not established for shipments where payment had been substantially realised or delay was not shown to be blameworthy, but it was sustained where no effective steps were taken and RBI extension was not sought in time. The penalty was then reassessed and reduced to reflect only the upheld part of the contravention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 13:37:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 359 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458008</link>
      <description>Contravention of export-proceeds repatriation rules depends on whether the exporter took timely and bona fide reasonable steps to recover payment and sought Reserve Bank extension before expiry or promptly thereafter. Mere eventual recovery, or a bare assertion of difficulty, does not by itself negate breach. On the record, the charge was not established for shipments where payment had been substantially realised or delay was not shown to be blameworthy, but it was sustained where no effective steps were taken and RBI extension was not sought in time. The penalty was then reassessed and reduced to reflect only the upheld part of the contravention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>