https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459804 The court determined that the appellant violated section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, concerning the possession of Rs. 13,29,000, but limited the contravention of section 9(1)(d) to Rs. 10,000. The appellant's challenges to the legality of the search and seizure, as well as the admissibility of his confession, were dismissed. The court found the evidence, including the appellant's confession, sufficient to support the charges. Consequently, the penalties were reduced, and the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 55,000 in penalties. en-us Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 10:43:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459804 The court determined that the appellant violated section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, concerning the possession of Rs. 13,29,000, but limited the contravention of section 9(1)(d) to Rs. 10,000. The appellant's challenges to the legality of the search and seizure, as well as the admissibility of his confession, were dismissed. The court found the evidence, including the appellant's confession, sufficient to support the charges. Consequently, the penalties were reduced, and the appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 55,000 in penalties. Case-Laws FEMA Sun, 05 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459804