<?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 531 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789462</link>
    <description>A foreign buyer&#039;s direct payment to a foreign agent was held not to be commission payable by the exporter where the record showed no contractual obligation or proof that the agent was engaged by the appellants. A director who joined after the exports lacked personal knowledge, so his statement was treated as hearsay and could not by itself support liability. On those facts, the amount was not foreign exchange due to or accrued in favour of the exporter under FEMA, so it was not required to be repatriated and the related export-regulation theory failed. The Tribunal also held that FEMA action was not barred merely because of a Customs settlement order on connected facts, but no penalty could survive without a proved contravention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 531 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789462</link>
      <description>A foreign buyer&#039;s direct payment to a foreign agent was held not to be commission payable by the exporter where the record showed no contractual obligation or proof that the agent was engaged by the appellants. A director who joined after the exports lacked personal knowledge, so his statement was treated as hearsay and could not by itself support liability. On those facts, the amount was not foreign exchange due to or accrued in favour of the exporter under FEMA, so it was not required to be repatriated and the related export-regulation theory failed. The Tribunal also held that FEMA action was not barred merely because of a Customs settlement order on connected facts, but no penalty could survive without a proved contravention.</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=789462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>