<?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>2024 (6) TMI 1573 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467616</link>
    <description>The article explains that, under FEMA&#039;s transitional limitation rule, notice issued within two years of commencement was valid, so the limitation objection failed. It also states that refusal to allow cross-examination of bank officials did not vitiate adjudication because the bank clarification reduced the liability and caused no prejudice, so no natural justice breach was made out. On the merits, non-production of the Exchange Control Copy of the Bill of Entry was held to be a substantive contravention, not a mere technical lapse, and the company failed to prove the remittances were matched by imports. Directors in charge of business remained liable absent proof of lack of knowledge or due diligence, so the penalties were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 19:09:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1573 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467616</link>
      <description>The article explains that, under FEMA&#039;s transitional limitation rule, notice issued within two years of commencement was valid, so the limitation objection failed. It also states that refusal to allow cross-examination of bank officials did not vitiate adjudication because the bank clarification reduced the liability and caused no prejudice, so no natural justice breach was made out. On the merits, non-production of the Exchange Control Copy of the Bill of Entry was held to be a substantive contravention, not a mere technical lapse, and the company failed to prove the remittances were matched by imports. Directors in charge of business remained liable absent proof of lack of knowledge or due diligence, so the penalties were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>