<?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 (3) TMI 1607 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466743</link>
    <description>A procedural lapse by Excise authorities in handing over seized currency and persons does not, on this analysis, curtail the independent investigative powers of Enforcement authorities under FEMA. The text also states that Section 16(3) only requires a written complaint to trigger adjudication and does not confine the adjudicating authority to the exact relief proposed in that complaint. It further explains that retracted statements may still be relied on if shown to be voluntary and corroborated, and that double jeopardy will fail where its ingredients are not established. Contravention of Section 3(c) is said to be proved on preponderance of probabilities through direct and circumstantial evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2026 20:11:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 1607 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466743</link>
      <description>A procedural lapse by Excise authorities in handing over seized currency and persons does not, on this analysis, curtail the independent investigative powers of Enforcement authorities under FEMA. The text also states that Section 16(3) only requires a written complaint to trigger adjudication and does not confine the adjudicating authority to the exact relief proposed in that complaint. It further explains that retracted statements may still be relied on if shown to be voluntary and corroborated, and that double jeopardy will fail where its ingredients are not established. Contravention of Section 3(c) is said to be proved on preponderance of probabilities through direct and circumstantial evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>