<?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>Deferred import payments treated as foreign exchange borrowing, with directors liable and civil penalty upheld under FEMA.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101598</link>
    <description>Prolonged non-payment of import dues was treated as a deferred payment arrangement and external commercial borrowing under the RBI circulars and the Borrowing or Lending in Foreign Exchange Regulations; the absence of a formal loan agreement did not alter that character, so FEMA contravention was sustained. Post-facto RBI remittance letters were limited to foreign-exchange permission and did not condone the breach. The Tribunal also upheld liability of the directors for the company&#039;s contravention, finding no due diligence defence. It rejected the argument that absence of mens rea barred civil penalty under FEMA, though it reduced the penalties.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:05 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Deferred import payments treated as foreign exchange borrowing, with directors liable and civil penalty upheld under FEMA.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101598</link>
      <description>Prolonged non-payment of import dues was treated as a deferred payment arrangement and external commercial borrowing under the RBI circulars and the Borrowing or Lending in Foreign Exchange Regulations; the absence of a formal loan agreement did not alter that character, so FEMA contravention was sustained. Post-facto RBI remittance letters were limited to foreign-exchange permission and did not condone the breach. The Tribunal also upheld liability of the directors for the company&#039;s contravention, finding no due diligence defence. It rejected the argument that absence of mens rea barred civil penalty under FEMA, though it reduced the penalties.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:05 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>