Successor statute limitation governs post-repeal foreign exchange appeals, with delay condonation available and remand ordered for fresh consideration.

An appeal filed after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was governed by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, even though the adjudication order arose under the repealed Act. The Tribunal could therefore consider condonation of delay beyond ninety days on sufficient cause under the proviso to section 19(2) of the 1999 Act, and could not dismiss the appeal merely by relying on the outer limit under section 52(2) of the repealed Act. The court also found that the pre-deposit issue and the merits of the connected appeals required fresh consideration under the correct regime. The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remanded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal filed after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was governed by the limitation under that Act or by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, including condonation of delay beyond ninety days; (ii) whether the matter required reconsideration of the effect of non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount and the merits of the appeals.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal filed after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was governed by the limitation under that Act or by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, including condonation of delay beyond ninety days.

Analysis: The applicable appellate regime was held to be the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 where the appeal is filed after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, even if the adjudication order was passed under the repealed Act. Under the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, delay beyond ninety days can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The appellate tribunal therefore could not reject the appeal solely because it was filed beyond the outer limit under Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required reconsideration of the effect of non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount and the merits of the appeals.

Analysis: The tribunal had treated the pre-deposit consequence in the context of the repealed regime and had not examined the merits of one of the two connected appeals on the relevant transaction. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not stand and a fresh decision was necessary on both the pre-deposit issue under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and the merits of the appeals.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the connected appeals were remanded for fresh adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of securing condonation of delay and a remand for reconsideration of the pre-deposit question and the merits, while leaving the substantive controversy open before the appellate tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal against an order under the repealed foreign exchange regime is filed after repeal, the appellate remedy is governed by the successor statute's limitation and condonation provisions, and the appeal cannot be dismissed mechanically on the ninety-day limit under the repealed Act.

---