RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
FOREIGN EXCHANGE DEPARTMENT
CENTRAL OFFICE
MUMBAI 400 001
Notification No. FEMA. 324/2014-RB
October 31, 2014
Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) (Amendment) Regulations, 2014
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 47 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999), the Reserve Bank of India hereby makes the following amendment in the Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Regulations, 2000 (Notification No. FEMA. 13/ 2000 -RB dated May 3, 2000), namely-
2. Short title and commencement
i. These Regulations may be called the Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) (Amendment) Regulations, 2014.
ii. They shall come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
3. Amendment of the regulations
In the Foreign Exchange Management (Remittance of Assets) Regulations, 2000 (Notification No. FEMA 13/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000),
A. In regulation 4,
a) in sub-regulation (2), in clause (iii),
(i) for the words and figures “may remit an amount, not exceeding US$ 1,000,000 (US Dollar One Million Only) per financial year on production of,”, the words and figures “may remit an amount, not exceeding US$ 1,000,000 (US Dollar One Million Only) per financial year subject to payment of applicable taxes in India, if any, on production of,” shall be substituted.
(ii) in sub-clause (a), the word “and” shall be deleted.
(iii) the existing sub-clause (b) shall be deleted
b) in sub- regulation (3),
(i) after the words and figures, “A Non-Resident Indian (NRI) / Person of Indian Origin (PIO) may remit an amount not exceeding US $ 1,000,000 (US Dollar One Million Only) per financial year”, the words, “subject to payment of applicable taxes in India, if any,” shall be inserted.
(ii) in clause (i), in sub-clause (a), the word “and” shall be deleted.
(iii) in clause (i), the existing sub-clause (b) shall be deleted.
(iv) in clause (ii), in sub-clause (a), the word “and” shall be deleted.
(v) in clause (ii), the existing sub-clause (b) shall be deleted.
c) in sub-regulation (4),
(i) in clause (ii), sub-clause (a) shall be deleted.
(ii) after clause (ii), the following shall be added namely,
“(iii) payment of applicable taxes in India, if any.”
B. In regulation 7,
a) in sub-regulation (1), the existing clause (C) shall be deleted.
b) the existing sub-regulation (2), shall be substituted by the following namely,
“(2) On consideration of the application made under sub-regulation (1), the authorized dealer concerned may permit the remittance subject to the directions issued by the Reserve Bank in this regard, from time to time and payment of applicable taxes in India, if any.”
(C D Srinivasan)
Chief General Manager
Foot Note:
The Principal Regulations were published in the Official Gazette vide No.G.S.R.396 (E) dated May 5, 2000 in part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) and subsequently amended vide:
a. No.G.S.R. 576 (E) dated August 19, 2002;
b. No.G.S.R. 630 (E) dated August 4, 2003;
c. No.G.S.R. 699 (E) dated September 1, 2003;
d. No.G.S.R. 493 (E) dated August 4, 2004;
e. No.G.S.R. 400 (E) dated May 30, 2007;
f. No.G.S.R. 90 (E) dated February 15, 2008;
g. No.G.S.R. 837 (E) dated November 23, 2009
h. No.G.S.R. 199 (E) dated August 9, 2011.
|
Published in the Official Gazette of Government |
okay. Else revenue harass the tax payers irrationally like in wednesbury principl, though strict liability is on revenue when it penalizes taxpayer-people under mens rea read into civil liability.. in this connection i would suggest revenue people need understand what Lord Reid said in Sweet & Palsy(1970)then Lord Scarman in Gammon v AG for Hongkong(1985) on ‘presumptons’ -whether reading in a mens rea requirement would defeat parliament intention in creating the particular offense i.e the defendant must escape liability too by pleading ignorance,this would not address the ‘mischief’ that parliament was attempting remedy.
Better decisions emanated in Canada….since 1976 the hon Canadian S C recognized a distinct distinction between ‘offenses’ and ‘absolute liability’ in R v City of Sault St.Marie the hon ct created two tiered system of liability for regular offenses under the system Crown would confirm to be relieved from forcing mens rea of the offense.
However offence of ‘strict liability’ would grant accused a defence of ‘strict liability’ which would be confirmed to be denied in the cases of ‘absolute liability’.
in sections like 271(1)(c) in income tax Act if there is some fixed fine then strict liability would not accrue but if the penalty is going on increasing as per whims and fancies of AO or the revenue the revenue actions would fall under ‘strict liability’ and certainly not under ‘absolute liability’ is most sane rule of law.that was well defined by the Canadian S C.
so anything like absolute need be tested under Wednesbury principle and Proportionality by any Supreme court on the anvil of constitution of the relevant country after all citizens enjoy – magna carta,bill of rights or individual rights or fundamental rights to curn any arbitrary action by any authority that way authorities would be duly fettered to work under ‘strict liability’ and the authority cannot on his own volition cannot make any offense as absolute liability unless Parliament passes within its own fettered conditions by constitution on the very parliament.
so the FEMA cannot be taken for granted by any authority without ‘due procedure laid down in law read with Art 265 of the constitution of india.