Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases FEMA HC FEMA - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

FEMA - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 355 Records

  • 2014 (10) TMI 404 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Contravention of Sections 9 (1) (b), 9 (1) (c) and 9 (1) (d) read with Section 64 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 - Remission of amount from abroad - Held that - ED itself is not clear whether the declaration made by Mr. Sri Chawla in Bangkok could be termed as a statement under Section 40 of FERA. It is not shown that the procedure envisaged under FERA was followed while recording the said declaration. In any event, Mr. Sri Cha....... + More


  • 2014 (9) TMI 1085 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Guilty of the offence under Sections 6(4), 6(5) 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(f)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - fine imposed - Held that - In the first place, it is not clear why, after recording the statements under Section 40 of FERA of the appellant and Mr. Mendiratta in May 1995, the ED waited till the last date of the sunset period, i.e., 30th May, 2002 for issuing the Memorandum. The second feature is that the only relied upon docum....... + More


  • 2014 (8) TMI 1105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Complaint filed under Section 16(3) FEMA - Writ of mandamus to forbear the respondent from proceeding further with the adjudication in pursuance of a show cause notice, without complying with a particular Rule - Held that - The scheme of Section 4 actually provides opportunities at the every stage to the noticee. The forming of an opinion at the stage of show cause notice and receipt of reply, as provided in sub-rule (3) of Rule 4, is almost akin....... + More


  • 2014 (8) TMI 607 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Contravention of Section 8 (3) read with Section 8 (4) and Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Penalty upon Director of company - Appellant states that he was a part time, non-executive director of MXL but neither in-charge of nor responsible for the conduct of its day-to-day affairs. MXL commenced its business in the year 1983-84 and had been importing goods/raw materials for its business requirements. MXL was amalgamated w....... + More


  • 2014 (7) TMI 1151 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Rejection of application seeking compounding of offence punishable under Section 23(1) read with 4(1) of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 - Held that - a perusal of the impugned order shows that no reason for declining the application for compounding has been given and he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the competent authority on this issue. - in view of the principle of audi-alterem partem, the CBI could not have been....... + More


  • 2014 (7) TMI 727 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Condonation of delay - delay of 179 days - it is submitted that, collective decision was required to be taken in the government departments at various levels, therefore, valuable time was consumed - Held that - under Section 35 of FEMA, appeal against the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal would lie before the High Court provided the appeal is filed within a period of 60 days, extendable by a further period not exceeding 60 days if the H....... + More


  • 2014 (6) TMI 577 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Hawala transactions - Partial explanation of payment made through hawala channels - During investigation appellant invoked right against self incrimination under Article 20(3) - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Impugned AO of the SD, ED and the impugned order of the AT proceeded on the basis that the Appellant could not have validly invoked the right against self-incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution since he was not accused i....... + More


  • 2014 (5) TMI 863 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Contravention of Section 9 (1) (d) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Payment made on behalf of foreign national without prior approval of RBI - Held that - There can be no doubt that a retracted statement under Section 40 FERA, cannot form the sole basis for determining whether the maker of such a statement is guilty of contravening any of the provisions of FERA. It shall have to be corroborated by other independent evidence. In determin....... + More


  • 2014 (5) TMI 824 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Violation of Section 8 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - allegation that appellant has exported the goods only for availing export benefits - levy of penalty - Held that - From the inquiries purportedly made by CGI, Dubai, as reflected in the correspondence between it and the DRI, the consignment was probably not cleared by APL since there were legal problems regarding the copyright raised by the Dubai Customs. Interestingly, in ....... + More


  • 2014 (5) TMI 784 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 - Penalty - recovery and seizure of Indian currency - No opportunity for cross examination granted - Held that - there was miscarriage of justice in denying the request of the Appellants for cross-examination of the ED officials. Allowing the request would have enabled the SD to determine whether the claim that the confessional statements were recorded under threa....... + More


  • 2014 (4) TMI 1162 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Under-invoicing of the imports - Contravention of Sections 8 (3) read with 8 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act - Held that - There is nothing incriminating in the statements made by the Appellant under Section 40 FERA, admitting to under-invoicing of the imports. As far as the statement of Mr. Puri is concerned, it is seen that it was made under Section 108 of the CA and not Section 40 FERA and could not, ipso facto, be used for the pro....... + More


  • 2014 (4) TMI 612 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 804 days in filing of appeal - Section 35 of FEMA - Held that - Section 54 FERA permits an appeal to be filed to the High Court within 60 days. The proviso clearly prescribes that the High Court shall not entertain any appeal under Section 54 if it is filed after the expiry of 60 days of the date of communication of the decision or order of Appellate Tribunal unless the High Court is satisfied that the a....... + More


  • 2014 (4) TMI 585 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Violation of Section 8(1), 16(1), 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c)of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Special Director purportedly issued a Corrigendum stating that paragraph No. 87 is deleted and in paragraph No. 88 in line No.2 after the words Noticee No.1 and before the name Mr. Stephen John Michie, the name Shri Raman Narula-Noticee No.2 is inserted - Held that - no prior notice was issued to Mr. Narula by the SD when the Corrigendum was issued....... + More


  • 2014 (4) TMI 516 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 - Donations made to political parties for the period up to the year 2009 - Violation of Section 293(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 - Receipt of donations from the State Trading Corporation and Metals & Minerals Trading Corporation of India - Respondent contends that M/s Sterlite Industries India Ltd and M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. are not foreign companies and are Indian companies - Held that ....... + More


  • 2014 (4) TMI 466 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Condonation of delay - decision to file appeal was taken at various levels which consumed valuable time - Held that - Apparently, the present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 775 days. Section 35 of FEMA permits the appeal to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal on any question of law arising out of such order. The proviso authorises High Courts to extend the a....... + More


  • 2014 (3) TMI 719 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Illicit sale and purchase of foreign exchange from and to unknown persons. - contravention of Sections 8(1) and Section 8(2) read with Section 64(2). - retraction of statement by the accused as having been given under the duress and coercion. - Held that - for the statement by one noticee under Section 40 FERA to be used as evidence against another co-noticee it must be shown that the said statement inculpates the person making it. Otherwise such....... + More


  • 2014 (3) TMI 678 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Under-invoicing of import - manipulation this under invoicing was done for foreign exchange reasons to keep their value below the licensing restrictions imposed on them by the Indian authorities. - Levy of penalty for contravention of Sections 8 (1) read with Sections 68 (1) and 68 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( FERA ) - Held that - It was incumbent under Section 72 (ii) FERA read with Clause (a) thereof for each of the docume....... + More


  • 2014 (3) TMI 210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Forfeiture of property - Joint ownership being wives - scope of the term relative and the illegally acquired property - validity notice issued u/s 6(1) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property ) Act 1976 (SAFEMA) - principles of natural justice - validity of composite orders - Proceeding under COFEPOSA - Held that - or issuing notice under Section 6(1), the competent authority need not come to a conclusion that t....... + More


  • 2014 (3) TMI 170 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Issue of notice at old address - principle of natural justice - proceedings under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 imposing penalty of Rs. 50 lacs on each of the petitioners. - Held that - though respondent no. 2 was aware as far back as 17th July, 2000 about the new address of petitioners (as is apparent from the summons issued to the petitioners by respondent no. 2 itself), yet on 20th August, 2002, it issued show cause notices to the peti....... + More


  • 2014 (3) TMI 97 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Violation of FERA - hawala payments - Retracted confession - Unreasonable and excessive penalties for Violation of FERA - Held that - With the evidence on record clearly pointing to the involvement of BTC and with the involvement of its partners also being demonstrated, there was no error committed by SD in proceeding to hold BTC and its partners guilty of contravention of Sections 9(1)(b)(d) and (f) of the FERA. There was no misapplication of Se....... + More


5........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version