Repealed foreign exchange law continues to govern adjudication validity, and delay beyond the fixed appeal limit is not condonable.

On appeals arising from adjudication proceedings initiated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 after its repeal, the substantive legality of the adjudication order remains to be tested under the repealed Act, while transfer and disposal of pending appeals are governed by section 49(5)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Section 49(3) is confined to cognizance of offences within the sunset period and does not control such appeal scrutiny. Where the special statute fixes a maximum condonable delay of 90 days under section 52(2) of the repealed Act, delay beyond that outer limit is not condonable and the Limitation Act, 1963 stands excluded. The appeal was therefore treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for an appeal against an adjudication order passed after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the correctness and legality of the order had to be tested under the repealed Act or under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and whether the delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory outer limit could be condoned.

Analysis: The repeal and saving provisions of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 were applied to hold that, although the Appellate Board under the repealed Act stood dissolved and the appeal lay before the Appellate Tribunal under the new enactment, the adjudication proceedings had been initiated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the substantive legality of the adjudication order had therefore to be examined under the repealed Act. Section 49(5)(b) governed transfer and disposal of pending appeals by the new Tribunal, while Section 49(3) was confined to cognizance of offences within the sunset period. Since Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 prescribed a maximum condonable period of 90 days, the delay of 118 days was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to condone. The Limitation Act, 1963 stood excluded by the special statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The appeal was time-barred beyond the statutory outer limit and the dismissal of the appeal by the Tribunal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a special fiscal or economic-offence statute prescribing a fixed outer limit for filing an appeal, delay beyond that limit cannot be condoned, and on repeal, the substantive provisions governing the original adjudication continue to apply where the proceedings were initiated under the repealed enactment.

---