Continuing revisional jurisdiction under repealed foreign exchange law upheld, and prohibitory payment violations attracted penalties.

Revisional power under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was treated as continuing where the saving and transitional framework preserved proceedings under the earlier law, and the petitions were not barred merely because they were filed after repeal or after a delay assessed as reasonable on the facts. The Tribunal distinguished revisional from appellate jurisdiction and held that it could correct illegality, jurisdictional error, and non-consideration of material evidence. On the merits, payments and receipts involving non-resident persons without the required permission were held to contravene the prohibitory foreign exchange provisions, and ignorance of law was rejected as a defence. The exoneration order was set aside and penalties were imposed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petitions were maintainable and could be entertained after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and after delay. (ii) Whether the respondents had contravened Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether the adjudication order exonerating them could be set aside and penalty imposed.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petitions were maintainable and could be entertained after the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and after delay.

Analysis: The revisional power was held to be distinct from appellate power and capable of being exercised to correct illegality, jurisdictional error, and failure to consider material evidence. The repeal of the earlier enactment did not take away the revisional remedy because the saving and transitional framework preserved proceedings under the repealed law, and the Tribunal treated its revisional authority as continuing. The delay was examined on the principle that, where no limitation period is prescribed, action must be taken within a reasonable time, the content of which depends on the facts and circumstances. In the absence of waiver or acquiescence, the petitions were not rejected merely on delay or defective drafting.

Conclusion: The revision petitions were maintainable and could be entertained despite the repeal and the delay.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents had contravened Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and whether the adjudication order exonerating them could be set aside and penalty imposed.

Analysis: On the admitted factual matrix, payments were made and received in connection with non-resident persons without the requisite permission. The defence of ignorance of law was rejected, since ignorance of law is no excuse, while the plea of ignorance of fact was found unsupported. The Tribunal also drew adverse inference from the failure to establish the alleged absence of knowledge and found the exoneration order to rest on an erroneous premise. It further held that the material provisions prohibited the relevant payments and receipts, and that the Tribunal, having examined the merits, should itself determine the consequence rather than remit the matter.

Conclusion: The respondents were held guilty of contravention of Section 9(1)(d) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the exoneration order was set aside, and penalties were imposed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the exoneration order succeeded, the findings of no contravention were displaced, and the respondents were visited with monetary penalties for the foreign exchange violations established on the record.

Ratio Decidendi: Where revisional power is statutorily preserved, it may be exercised after repeal and within a reasonable time to correct illegality or perversity, and ignorance of law does not defeat liability for contravention of prohibitory foreign exchange provisions.

---