Saving clause under foreign exchange law turns on timely cognizance, while concurrent findings upheld breach of reasonable care.

Under the saving provision of the repealed foreign exchange law, adjudication was held time-barred only if notice of contravention was not taken within the prescribed period; the decisive act was the adjudicating officer's taking cognizance within time, not service of the memorandum on the noticee. The article also notes that the court rejected any requirement of simultaneous criminal cognizance and preserved proceedings lawfully initiated within the saving period. On merits, repeated foreign currency sales on fictitious sponsorships and fake firms supported concurrent findings of failure to exercise reasonable care and breach of RBI instructions, and those factual findings were not disturbed absent perversity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the adjudication proceedings under the repealed foreign exchange law were initiated within the time permitted by the saving provision in the new enactment. (ii) Whether the appellants, while selling foreign currency, failed to exercise the required reasonable care and violated the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.

Issue (i): Whether the adjudication proceedings under the repealed foreign exchange law were initiated within the time permitted by the saving provision in the new enactment.

Analysis: The saving clause in the new enactment barred notice of contravention under the repealed law after the prescribed period from commencement. The memorandum recording the contraventions was dated within that period, and the requirement was only that the adjudicating officer take notice within time, not that service on the noticee be completed within that period. The Court further held that the provision could not be read as requiring simultaneous cognizance by a criminal court and notice by the adjudicating officer, and that the scheme of the repealed and saving provisions preserved pending action lawfully initiated within time.

Conclusion: The proceedings were validly initiated within limitation and the challenge on the ground of expiry of time failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants, while selling foreign currency, failed to exercise the required reasonable care and violated the Reserve Bank of India guidelines.

Analysis: The record showed repeated sales of foreign currency to the same or connected persons within a short span on the basis of fictitious sponsorships and fake firms. Both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority had returned concurrent factual findings that the appellants had not taken reasonable care and had acted contrary to the governing instructions. No perversity in those findings was established.

Conclusion: The findings of violation and imposition of penalty were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both limitation and merits, and the impugned orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a saving provision requires an adjudicating officer to take notice of contravention within a fixed period, the decisive act is the officer's taking of notice within time, not service of the memorandum on the noticee; concurrent factual findings of lack of reasonable care in foreign exchange dealings will not be disturbed absent perversity.

---