<?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>2008 (6) TMI 649 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458011</link>
    <description>Saved repealed foreign exchange law continued to govern past contraventions, so pending adjudication and the appointment of the adjudicating officer remained valid under the saving clause, and the repeal objection failed. Authorised foreign exchange dealers were bound to exercise due care and comply with regulatory directions; selling foreign currency against fictitious sponsored persons breached the licence conditions and statutory restrictions. The contravention was treated as a regulatory offence not requiring proof of mens rea, and the managerial appellants were liable for acts done in the course of business despite not personally handling the transactions. The adjudication and penalties were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 14:26:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=771581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 649 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458011</link>
      <description>Saved repealed foreign exchange law continued to govern past contraventions, so pending adjudication and the appointment of the adjudicating officer remained valid under the saving clause, and the repeal objection failed. Authorised foreign exchange dealers were bound to exercise due care and comply with regulatory directions; selling foreign currency against fictitious sponsored persons breached the licence conditions and statutory restrictions. The contravention was treated as a regulatory offence not requiring proof of mens rea, and the managerial appellants were liable for acts done in the course of business despite not personally handling the transactions. The adjudication and penalties were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458011</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>