FEMA repeal-and-saving clause preserves prior appointments and limits interference with factual findings absent perversity.

Section 49 of FEMA, 1999 preserves proceedings under the repealed foreign exchange law and deems prior acts, notifications and appointments to continue under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, unless inconsistent with it. On that basis, the appointment of the Adjudicating Officer was upheld because the show-cause notice had been issued within time and the challenge to the appointment could not be sustained. The court also noted that the finding on financial capacity was factual, supported by the record, and no perversity was shown to warrant interference; the order dismissing the writ petition was therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appointment of the Adjudicating Officer under the repealed regime was invalid in view of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; (ii) Whether the finding on the appellant's financial capacity was perverse so as to justify interference.

Issue (i): Whether the appointment of the Adjudicating Officer under the repealed regime was invalid in view of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The repeal and saving provisions under Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 preserve proceedings in respect of offences under the repealed law and also deem acts, notifications and appointments made under the repealed enactment to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, so far as they are not inconsistent with it. The show cause notice had been issued within the statutory period and the challenge to the legality of the appointment of the Adjudicating Officer, therefore, could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The challenge to the appointment of the Adjudicating Officer failed and was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding on the appellant's financial capacity was perverse so as to justify interference.

Analysis: The finding on financial hardship was based on the record and on the absence of any material showing that deposit of 10% of the penalty would render the right of appeal illusory. Such a finding was factual in nature and no perversity was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The finding on financial capacity was not perverse and was against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity, and the writ petition's dismissal was rightly sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notification or appointment made under a repealed enactment is saved by the statutory repeal-and-saving clause and continues to operate under the corresponding provisions of the new Act unless inconsistent with it, while factual findings will not be interfered with in the absence of perversity.

---