https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774217 The Madras HC dismissed writ petitions challenging the formation of opinion under Rule 4(3) of FEMA Rules against a technology company for alleged unauthorized royalty payments. The court held that opinion formation under Rule 4(3) requires only application of mind, not written reasons, and strong suspicion suffices at this preliminary stage. Following consistent precedent from Division Bench decisions, the court refused to interfere with the adjudicating authority's opinion. However, the court directed that all investigation documents, including non-relied upon documents (non-RUDs), must be furnished to petitioners for effective defense during adjudication proceedings under Rule 4(4). en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774217 The Madras HC dismissed writ petitions challenging the formation of opinion under Rule 4(3) of FEMA Rules against a technology company for alleged unauthorized royalty payments. The court held that opinion formation under Rule 4(3) requires only application of mind, not written reasons, and strong suspicion suffices at this preliminary stage. Following consistent precedent from Division Bench decisions, the court refused to interfere with the adjudicating authority's opinion. However, the court directed that all investigation documents, including non-relied upon documents (non-RUDs), must be furnished to petitioners for effective defense during adjudication proceedings under Rule 4(4). Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 25 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774217