https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458003 A charge framed under section 8(1) read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as legally unsustainable where the alleged conduct, if proved, amounted to taking foreign exchange out of India, a matter specifically governed by section 13(2). The evidentiary basis was also found inadequate: statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not treated as substantive proof in the circumstances, the third-party statement was not admissible against the appellant without cross-examination, and the Hong Kong Customs letter did not sufficiently corroborate delivery of foreign exchange. The penalty order was therefore set aside and the pre-deposit refunded. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 13:37:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458003 A charge framed under section 8(1) read with section 64(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as legally unsustainable where the alleged conduct, if proved, amounted to taking foreign exchange out of India, a matter specifically governed by section 13(2). The evidentiary basis was also found inadequate: statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were not treated as substantive proof in the circumstances, the third-party statement was not admissible against the appellant without cross-examination, and the Hong Kong Customs letter did not sufficiently corroborate delivery of foreign exchange. The penalty order was therefore set aside and the pre-deposit refunded. Case-Laws FEMA Mon, 10 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458003