https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90147 The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to criminal proceedings under FERA Section 56 for failing to realize export proceeds worth Rs. 84.46 crores involving 119 GRs. The petitioner, a trading house proprietor, claimed immunity from prosecution based on a Settlement Commission order under the Customs Act. The HC held that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction extends only to customs duty matters and cannot grant immunity for FERA violations. The court found that FERA/FEMA violations were not adjudicated by the Settlement Commission, and any purported immunity for FERA offenses would be void ab initio. The petitioner failed to invoke Section 60 FERA's immunity mechanism. The HC upheld the ACMM's dismissal of the discharge application, confirming that prosecution under FERA Section 56 for export realization violations remains valid despite the customs settlement. en-us Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:39 +0530 Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90147 The HC dismissed the petitioner's challenge to criminal proceedings under FERA Section 56 for failing to realize export proceeds worth Rs. 84.46 crores involving 119 GRs. The petitioner, a trading house proprietor, claimed immunity from prosecution based on a Settlement Commission order under the Customs Act. The HC held that the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction extends only to customs duty matters and cannot grant immunity for FERA violations. The court found that FERA/FEMA violations were not adjudicated by the Settlement Commission, and any purported immunity for FERA offenses would be void ab initio. The petitioner failed to invoke Section 60 FERA's immunity mechanism. The HC upheld the ACMM's dismissal of the discharge application, confirming that prosecution under FERA Section 56 for export realization violations remains valid despite the customs settlement. Highlights FEMA Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:39 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=90147