https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458007 Advance remittances received against exports were not treated as borrowings absent proof of an agreement, express or implied, to repay in foreign exchange, so the charge under section 8(1) failed. Imports under licence and the alleged acknowledgment of liability did not, on the record, establish an enforceable debt or valid acknowledgment sufficient to prove contravention under section 9(1)(c), so that charge required fresh adjudication. The section 18(2) charge also could not be finally sustained because it depended on the proper characterisation of the remittances and the related liability findings; the penalties were set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 13:37:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458007 Advance remittances received against exports were not treated as borrowings absent proof of an agreement, express or implied, to repay in foreign exchange, so the charge under section 8(1) failed. Imports under licence and the alleged acknowledgment of liability did not, on the record, establish an enforceable debt or valid acknowledgment sufficient to prove contravention under section 9(1)(c), so that charge required fresh adjudication. The section 18(2) charge also could not be finally sustained because it depended on the proper characterisation of the remittances and the related liability findings; the penalties were set aside and the matter was remitted for de novo adjudication. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 05 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458007