https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768199 The Calcutta HC dismissed a petition seeking compounding of FEMA offences after adjudication proceedings concluded. The petitioner initially applied for compounding but withdrew after the application was returned for lacking clarity, then participated in adjudication proceedings without objection. After an adverse adjudication order, the petitioner again sought compounding. The HC held that compounding cannot be claimed as a right and must comply with legal provisions. The court ruled that allowing compounding post-adjudication would create uncertainty, render the Act toothless, and encourage circumvention of law. The compounding authority lacks jurisdiction to overrule adjudication orders, and the petitioner's strategic approach of testing waters before seeking compounding was impermissible. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 07:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768199 The Calcutta HC dismissed a petition seeking compounding of FEMA offences after adjudication proceedings concluded. The petitioner initially applied for compounding but withdrew after the application was returned for lacking clarity, then participated in adjudication proceedings without objection. After an adverse adjudication order, the petitioner again sought compounding. The HC held that compounding cannot be claimed as a right and must comply with legal provisions. The court ruled that allowing compounding post-adjudication would create uncertainty, render the Act toothless, and encourage circumvention of law. The compounding authority lacks jurisdiction to overrule adjudication orders, and the petitioner's strategic approach of testing waters before seeking compounding was impermissible. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768199