Saving of repealed foreign exchange law upheld, with revisional jurisdiction and penalty sustained on circumstantial evidence.

Revisional proceedings under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 remained maintainable before the substituted forum because the repeal by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 did not extinguish pending liabilities or remedies, and the saving provisions preserved continuation of such matters. The Tribunal therefore held it had jurisdiction to hear the revision. On liability, it found the receipt of funds through gift cheques was not satisfactorily explained, and circumstantial evidence together with adverse inference from facts within the respondents' special knowledge established contravention of the foreign exchange law. The adjudication order was set aside and penalties were imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition was maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the dissolution of the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board; (ii) Whether the respondents were liable for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and liable to penalty on the basis of the evidence on record.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition was maintainable before the Appellate Tribunal after repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the dissolution of the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board.

Analysis: The repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 did not extinguish proceedings arising under the repealed Act. The saving provisions preserved liabilities and remedies, and the substituted forum could entertain matters which were pending or otherwise maintainable under the old law. The Tribunal held that revisional proceedings against adjudication orders under the repealed Act could be pursued before the new forum in continuation of the original proceedings.

Conclusion: The revision petition was maintainable and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide it.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents were liable for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and liable to penalty on the basis of the evidence on record.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the transaction involving receipt of funds through gift cheques lacked a satisfactory explanation from the respondents and that the surrounding circumstances supported the allegation of contravention. It held that circumstantial evidence and the principle relating to facts especially within the knowledge of the parties justified an adverse inference. The exoneration by the adjudicating authority was found to be erroneous, and the conduct fell within the prohibitions contained in the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Conclusion: The respondents were held liable for contravention, and penalties were imposed.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was set aside, the revision succeeded, and penalties were imposed on the respondents for the established contraventions under the repealed foreign exchange law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a repealed statute is saved by the successor enactment, proceedings arising under the repealed law may continue before the substituted forum, and liability may be sustained on clear circumstantial evidence supported by adverse inference from facts within the special knowledge of the parties.

---