{"id":195189,"date":"2018-04-12T11:29:49","date_gmt":"2018-04-12T05:59:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=195189"},"modified":"2018-04-12T11:29:49","modified_gmt":"2018-04-12T05:59:49","slug":"courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/","title":{"rendered":"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court:<\/strong> A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a Criminal Revision Petition before it. The petition alleged failure of the respondents to comply with Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 (hereinafter \u2018FERA\u2019) which prohibits taking cognizance by a court of offences punishable under Section 56 and 57 of FERA unless opportunity is provided to the accused to prove that they had the requisite permission.<\/p>\n

The petitioners argued that no such opportunity was provided, therefore, the trial court could not have taken cognizance and framed charges against the petitioners resulting in the proceedings thereto liable to being quashed. The counsel for the respondent, in response, conceded to the argument that there is a requirement of giving an opportunity to the accused to show that they had the requisite information and that it was provided when the accused had appeared before the Authority for recording his statement under Section 40 of FERA, however, the counsel submitted that the accused had failed to produce the permission when enquired about it. She further submitted that there is no mandatory requirement of giving an \u201copportunity notice\u201d.<\/p>\n

The statement was admittedly recorded in 1996, while the offence was alleged to have been committed in 1995. An \u201cOpportunity Notice\u201d was interestingly issued by respondents in 2002 which specifically asked the petitioners to show if they had the requisite permission in accordance with Section 61(2)(ii). However, on reviewing the statements on record, and the document itself, it was found that the notice was neither sent to the correct address nor served on the petitioner. The Court, while observing that there would have been no need to serve a notice in 2002 had an opportunity actually been provided to the petitioner earlier, rejected the arguments of the respondents. Petition allowed. Impugned order quashed. [United India Airways Ltd v. Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate,\u00a02018 SCC OnLine Del 8233<\/a>, decided on 05.04.2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a Criminal Revision Petition <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3726,6481,29850,29849],"class_list":["post-195189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cognizance","tag-fera","tag-opportunity-notice","tag-requisite-permission"],"yoast_head":"\nCourts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a Criminal Revision Petition\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-04-12T05:59:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/\",\"name\":\"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-04-12T05:59:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided","og_description":"Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., allowed a Criminal Revision Petition","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-04-12T05:59:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/","name":"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-04-12T05:59:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/04\/12\/courts-to-not-take-cognizance-of-offences-under-ss-56-57-of-fera-unless-opportunity-to-show-requisite-permission-under-s-612ii-provided\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Courts to not take cognizance of offences under Ss. 56 & 57 of FERA unless opportunity to show requisite permission under S. 61(2)(ii) provided"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":302732,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/30\/enforcement-officer-can-file-complaint-repealed-provisions-fera-sunset-period-after-fema-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":195189,"position":0},"title":"Can Enforcement Officer file complaint under repealed provisions of FERA after enforcement of FEMA? SC answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA Statute cannot be interpreted in such a manner that any provision thereof is rendered otiose.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"repealed provisions of FERA","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/repealed-provisions-of-FERA.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/repealed-provisions-of-FERA.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/repealed-provisions-of-FERA.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/repealed-provisions-of-FERA.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":305869,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/27\/delhi-high-court-quashes-ex-parte-proceedings-ed-violation-principles-natural-justice-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":195189,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court quashes proceedings under S. 56 FERA for violation of principles of natural justice","author":"Arunima","date":"October 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice\/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299124,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/11\/delhi-hc-emphasizes-on-non-compliance-of-s195-of-crpc-directs-issuance-of-guidelines\/","url_meta":{"origin":195189,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court directs issuance of guidelines to address non-compliance of Section 195 of CrPC","author":"Editor","date":"August 11, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe concerned public servant should have prepared a complaint under Section 195 CrPC and the same should have been filed before the Magistrate or the same could have been forwarded along with the chargesheet to the concerned Court.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239687,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/26\/kar-hc-whether-magistrate-is-required-to-give-elaborate-reasons-for-taking-cognizance-and-summoning-the-accused-in-view-of-report-under-s-173-cr-pc-legal-position-discussed\/","url_meta":{"origin":195189,"position":3},"title":"Kar HC | Whether Magistrate is required to give elaborate reasons for taking cognizance and summoning the accused in view of report under S. 173 CrPC? Legal position discussed","author":"Editor","date":"November 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: Michael Cunha J., dismissed the writ petition being found that the criminal action was rightly initiated against the petitioner. This instant petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash the charge\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":79981,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/10\/19\/private-complaint-against-public-servant-under-pc-act-1988-need-not-necessarily-be-accompanied-by-sanction-order-but-is-pre-requisite-in-taking-cognizance\/","url_meta":{"origin":195189,"position":4},"title":"Private complaint against public servant under PC Act, 1988 need not necessarily be accompanied by sanction order but, is pre-requisite in taking cognizance","author":"Saba","date":"October 19, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Karnataka: While deciding\u00a0\u00a0the issues raised for consideration of the Court pertaining to the nature of judicial process involved in the Court of the Special Judge directing an investigation by the police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when a private complaint is filed against a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":129851,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/05\/10\/directing-preliminary-inquiry-does-not-amount-to-taking-cognizance\/","url_meta":{"origin":195189,"position":5},"title":"Directing preliminary inquiry does not amount to \u2018taking cognizance\u2019","author":"Saba","date":"May 10, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Rajasthan High Court: While relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Lalita Kumari v.\u00a0Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Single Bench of Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.\u00a0has held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 mandates previous sanction of\u00a0the Government only for taking cognizance of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}