<?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 (4) TMI 376 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789307</link>
    <description>Import of consignments on credit was treated as falling within the foreign exchange borrowing framework rather than a mere current account transaction for purposes of the regulatory breach. The Tribunal held that where an importer avails foreign currency credit beyond the permitted six-month period and remittance is made after expiry of that period, Regulation 5(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing or Lending in Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 is contravened; proof of a separate loan contract was not necessary. The breach was considered technical because the remittance had been completed, so the penalty was reduced substantially while the finding of contravention was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 07:48:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 376 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789307</link>
      <description>Import of consignments on credit was treated as falling within the foreign exchange borrowing framework rather than a mere current account transaction for purposes of the regulatory breach. The Tribunal held that where an importer avails foreign currency credit beyond the permitted six-month period and remittance is made after expiry of that period, Regulation 5(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management (Borrowing or Lending in Foreign Exchange) Regulations, 2000 is contravened; proof of a separate loan contract was not necessary. The breach was considered technical because the remittance had been completed, so the penalty was reduced substantially while the finding of contravention was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>