Review jurisdiction under repealed foreign exchange law unavailable, and dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit remained intact.

Under the repealed foreign exchange law, the Tribunal lacked any general power of review and could only correct clerical errors, so a recall of its earlier dismissal order was not maintainable. The successor enactment could not be used to enlarge that jurisdiction, and the saving provisions merely continued the old regime for pending proceedings. The appeals also could not be revived because the appellants had not complied with the ordered pre-deposit of the balance penalty; non-compliance could not be converted into a basis for rehearing on merits. The dismissal for want of deposit therefore remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal had power to entertain a review application and recall its earlier dismissal order under the repealed foreign exchange law; (ii) whether the appeals and connected review request could be reopened despite failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal had power to entertain a review application and recall its earlier dismissal order under the repealed foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The applicable proceedings arose under the repealed foreign exchange regime, which provided a statutory right of appeal subject to pre-deposit, but did not confer any general power of review on the Tribunal. The limited power preserved under the repealed law was correction of clerical errors, not reconsideration of the merits. The successor enactment could not be imported to create a review jurisdiction where none existed under the governing statute. The saving provisions preserving actions and consequences under the repealed law were treated as continuing the old legal regime for such proceedings.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to recall the earlier order on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeals and connected review request could be reopened despite failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition.

Analysis: The earlier order had granted only partial waiver and required deposit of the balance penalty. The appellants did not make the required deposit. The grounds urged did not satisfy the settled limits for review, and non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction could not be converted into a basis for rehearing the matter on merits. The dismissal of the appeals for non-compliance therefore remained undisturbed.

Conclusion: The appeals could not be revived and the dismissal for non-compliance stood.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to reopen the matter, held that no review jurisdiction existed under the governing repealed statute, and left the dismissal of the appeals intact for want of compliance with the pre-deposit order.

Ratio Decidendi: A review cannot be entertained unless the governing statute expressly or by necessary implication confers that power, and saving provisions after repeal do not enlarge jurisdiction beyond what the repealed statute itself permitted.

---