<?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 (10) TMI 796 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780000</link>
    <description>Under FEMA, civil penalties may be imposed for reporting and filing contraventions on proof of statutory breach itself, without proof of mens rea or actual loss of foreign exchange; the plea to avoid liability on that basis was rejected. The Tribunal also held that later deletion of the underlying provision did not nullify action for violations committed when it was in force, and that the challenge based on delay failed because no specific limitation period was prescribed and the defaults were continuing in nature. The contravention amount was correctly quantified, but the penalty was found excessive on the facts and was substantially reduced while the finding of contravention was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 796 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780000</link>
      <description>Under FEMA, civil penalties may be imposed for reporting and filing contraventions on proof of statutory breach itself, without proof of mens rea or actual loss of foreign exchange; the plea to avoid liability on that basis was rejected. The Tribunal also held that later deletion of the underlying provision did not nullify action for violations committed when it was in force, and that the challenge based on delay failed because no specific limitation period was prescribed and the defaults were continuing in nature. The contravention amount was correctly quantified, but the penalty was found excessive on the facts and was substantially reduced while the finding of contravention was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>