<?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>2026 (3) TMI 1319 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788564</link>
    <description>Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 imposes deemed liability on a firm and on persons in charge of its business only where contravention by the firm is first established. Here, the firm&#039;s liability had already been set aside and that decision had attained finality after further appeals were dismissed. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the partner&#039;s derivative liability could not survive independently on the same allegations, and the penalties and confiscation against him were unsustainable. The impugned penalty and confiscatory orders were therefore quashed, and the seized amounts and pre-deposit were ordered to be released in the appellant&#039;s favour.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:49:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=892774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1319 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788564</link>
      <description>Section 42 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 imposes deemed liability on a firm and on persons in charge of its business only where contravention by the firm is first established. Here, the firm&#039;s liability had already been set aside and that decision had attained finality after further appeals were dismissed. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the partner&#039;s derivative liability could not survive independently on the same allegations, and the penalties and confiscation against him were unsustainable. The impugned penalty and confiscatory orders were therefore quashed, and the seized amounts and pre-deposit were ordered to be released in the appellant&#039;s favour.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>