Pendency of appeal does not stop penalty recovery without an express dispensation order under foreign exchange law.

Pendency of an appeal against a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 does not by itself suspend recovery where no specific order has been passed dispensing with payment or deposit. The Court applied the view that mere filing or entertainment of the appeal creates no implied stay, and that the statutory scheme requires an express order before recovery can be stopped. The recovery notice was therefore sustained and the writ petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a recovery notice for penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be sustained during the pendency of an appeal when no order had been passed dispensing with payment of the penalty amount.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the recovery notice on the ground that an appeal was pending and a request for dispensation of payment was awaiting orders. The Court relied on the view that, in the absence of a specific order dispensing with deposit or payment, mere filing or entertainment of the appeal does not suspend recovery. The Court also noted approval of that view by a Division Bench and accepted that the statutory scheme did not create any implied dispensation.

Conclusion: The recovery notice was held to be valid and the writ petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of an appeal by itself does not bar recovery of a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 unless there is a specific order dispensing with payment or deposit.

---