<?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 (7) TMI 658 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794772</link>
    <description>Prolonged unpaid import dues were treated under the RBI/FEMA framework as trade credit or external commercial borrowing, so the company&#039;s delayed remittances were characterised as a capital account transaction rather than ordinary current account payment. Subsequent RBI permission was held not to regularise the default or wipe out an already completed contravention because the letters expressly did not validate breaches under other laws. The individual directors were also held liable under the deeming provision, as they were directors during the relevant period, had signed statutory statements, and civil penalty under FEMA does not require proof of mens rea. The contravention findings were upheld, but the penalties were substantially reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 658 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794772</link>
      <description>Prolonged unpaid import dues were treated under the RBI/FEMA framework as trade credit or external commercial borrowing, so the company&#039;s delayed remittances were characterised as a capital account transaction rather than ordinary current account payment. Subsequent RBI permission was held not to regularise the default or wipe out an already completed contravention because the letters expressly did not validate breaches under other laws. The individual directors were also held liable under the deeming provision, as they were directors during the relevant period, had signed statutory statements, and civil penalty under FEMA does not require proof of mens rea. The contravention findings were upheld, but the penalties were substantially reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>