https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761812 An appellate tribunal under SAFEMA examined whether banks and their officers could be treated as having abetted foreign exchange contraventions by continuing letters of credit and remittances despite repeated non-submission of Bills of Entry and other documentary deficiencies. It also considered whether banks could avoid responsibility by saying they were bound only to process documents and not verify the underlying import transaction. The tribunal applied the Exchange Control Manual and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, holding that authorised dealers must exercise due care and comply with banking safeguards; a purely mechanical role was insufficient where persistent defaults and obvious irregularities were known. Continued facilitation of remittances in those circumstances was treated as abetment. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Nov 2024 12:30:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761812 An appellate tribunal under SAFEMA examined whether banks and their officers could be treated as having abetted foreign exchange contraventions by continuing letters of credit and remittances despite repeated non-submission of Bills of Entry and other documentary deficiencies. It also considered whether banks could avoid responsibility by saying they were bound only to process documents and not verify the underlying import transaction. The tribunal applied the Exchange Control Manual and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, holding that authorised dealers must exercise due care and comply with banking safeguards; a purely mechanical role was insufficient where persistent defaults and obvious irregularities were known. Continued facilitation of remittances in those circumstances was treated as abetment. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761812