<?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>Seized Indian currency confiscation and document-supply hearing dispute; penalties for ss. 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 4 upheld but reduced</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95390</link>
    <description>The appellants alleged breach of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon documents and lack of effective hearing, but the record showed all seized and relied documents were supplied under acknowledgment and notices were ignored, indicating deliberate non-cooperation; the adjudication was therefore sustained. Confiscation of seized Indian currency was upheld as the appellants failed to explain its source. Separate penalties for contraventions of ss. 3(a), 3(b), 3(d) and 4 were held permissible under s. 13(1)-(2), but the cumulative penalty on each appellant was reduced in the interest of justice, with prior pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty. - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Seized Indian currency confiscation and document-supply hearing dispute; penalties for ss. 3(a), 3(b), 3(d), 4 upheld but reduced</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95390</link>
      <description>The appellants alleged breach of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon documents and lack of effective hearing, but the record showed all seized and relied documents were supplied under acknowledgment and notices were ignored, indicating deliberate non-cooperation; the adjudication was therefore sustained. Confiscation of seized Indian currency was upheld as the appellants failed to explain its source. Separate penalties for contraventions of ss. 3(a), 3(b), 3(d) and 4 were held permissible under s. 13(1)-(2), but the cumulative penalty on each appellant was reduced in the interest of justice, with prior pre-deposit adjusted against the reduced penalty. - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>