<?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>2025 (4) TMI 16 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768102</link>
    <description>An exporter opting into a special export scheme must satisfy all scheme conditions, including proof that the goods reached the mandated destination. On the record, no reliable documentary evidence or Russian landing or discharge certificate was produced for the wheat flour consignments, so the alleged compliance was not established and the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange framework was upheld. The Tribunal also held that the appellate order was not cryptic, because it addressed the material issues, noted the penalty reduction, and explained why the penalties were maintained. The adverse findings and penalties were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 08:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=810643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 16 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768102</link>
      <description>An exporter opting into a special export scheme must satisfy all scheme conditions, including proof that the goods reached the mandated destination. On the record, no reliable documentary evidence or Russian landing or discharge certificate was produced for the wheat flour consignments, so the alleged compliance was not established and the finding of contravention under the foreign exchange framework was upheld. The Tribunal also held that the appellate order was not cryptic, because it addressed the material issues, noted the penalty reduction, and explained why the penalties were maintained. The adverse findings and penalties were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>