Foreign exchange contraventions survive repeal, and preliminary statements remain usable in adjudication proceedings.

Liability for foreign exchange contraventions committed while the 1947 Act was in force survived its repeal, because the repealing and saving provisions preserved prior liabilities and the later issue of show-cause notices did not extinguish them. Statements recorded at the investigative stage by officers subordinate to the Director of Enforcement were not vitiated under Section 19(E) merely because they were not taken by the adjudicating authority. The contravention findings were supported by the appellants' own statements and seized documents, so they were upheld; penalty interference was limited to one appeal, where the quantum was reduced on the facts, while the remaining penalties were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether contraventions committed before the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 could be proceeded with after the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 came into force; (ii) whether statements recorded by officers subordinate to the Director of Enforcement were vitiated under Section 19(E) of the 1947 Act; (iii) whether the findings of contravention and the penalties imposed called for interference, including reduction of penalty in one case.

Issue (i): Whether contraventions committed before the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 could be proceeded with after the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 came into force.

Analysis: The repealing provision in Section 81 of the 1973 Act preserved anything done or action taken under the repealed Act to the extent consistent with the new Act. In addition, the saving effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 preserved the previous operation of the repealed enactment and liabilities incurred under it. The foreign exchange violations had been committed while the 1947 Act was in force, so the liability had already arisen under the old law. The subsequent issue of show-cause notices after commencement of the 1973 Act did not extinguish that liability.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the 1947 Act were validly maintainable, and the repeal did not defeat the liability already incurred.

Issue (ii): Whether statements recorded by officers subordinate to the Director of Enforcement were vitiated under Section 19(E) of the 1947 Act.

Analysis: Section 19(E) was treated as governing adjudication and enquiry by the competent enforcement authority. The adjudication in these matters was conducted by the Additional Director of Enforcement. Statements taken at the preliminary stage of investigation, before adjudication commenced, were not held to infringe that provision merely because they were recorded by subordinate officers.

Conclusion: The statements were not invalid and could be relied upon in the adjudication proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the findings of contravention and the penalties imposed called for interference, including reduction of penalty in one case.

Analysis: The findings of guilt were supported by the appellants' own statements and the documents seized from the residence. The Court found no basis to disturb the conclusions of contravention. On penalty, the quantum was interfered with only to the limited extent considered justified on the facts of the wife's case, having regard to the family context and the circumstances in which the amounts were received. No similar extenuating circumstance was found for the other appellant whose penalty was left undisturbed.

Conclusion: The findings of contravention were affirmed; the penalty was reduced only in one appeal, while the other penalties were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed on the merits as to liability and contravention, with only a limited reduction of penalty granted in one matter, while the remaining appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A liability incurred for a contravention committed under a repealed enactment survives repeal and may be enforced under the saving provisions, and preliminary statements recorded during investigation are not invalid merely because they were taken by officers subordinate to the adjudicating authority.

---