Appeal by adjudicating authority without specific authorisation and reappreciation of facts under limited appellate jurisdiction disallowed.

An adjudicating authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not maintain an appeal against an Appellate Board order without specific authorization from the Central Government; the High Court appeal was therefore incompetent. The SC also held that the High Court's jurisdiction under section 54 was limited to questions of law and did not permit interference with unimpeached factual findings. Where the Board found that contravention of section 9(3) was not established, and a confession had been retracted and required corroboration, restoration of the adjudication order was unjustified. The appellate order in favour of the appellant was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Special Director or adjudicating authority, without specific authorization by the Central Government, could maintain an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Appellate Board under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Appellate Board's findings of fact and restoring the adjudication order.

Issue (i): Whether a Special Director or adjudicating authority, without specific authorization by the Central Government, could maintain an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Appellate Board under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act showed that officers of Enforcement exercise powers under the Act, while delegation of the Central Government's functions under Section 5 requires a specific order. Section 54 permits an appeal on questions of law, and the Explanation treated the Central Government as the aggrieved party where it sought to appeal. The authority that adjudicated the matter acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and did not, merely by reason of its office, become entitled to challenge the appellate order in the absence of a specific empowerment to do so on behalf of the Central Government.

Conclusion: The appeal before the High Court at the instance of the adjudicating authority was not maintainable in the absence of specific authorization; the finding is in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Appellate Board's findings of fact and restoring the adjudication order.

Analysis: The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 54 was confined to questions of law. The Appellate Board had returned a factual finding that the evidence did not establish contravention of Section 9(3). The record also required due regard to the appellant's retraction of confession, and a confession or inculpatory statement could not be treated as substantive proof without proper scrutiny and corroboration from independent evidence. Interference with the factual findings was therefore unwarranted unless they were perverse or legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in disturbing the Board's factual conclusions or in restoring the adjudication order; the finding is in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the appellate order in favour of the appellant was restored, leaving the adjudication order unsustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act cannot, without specific authorization from the Central Government, maintain an appeal against the Appellate Board's order, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 54 is confined to questions of law so it cannot reappreciate unimpeached findings of fact.

---