Jurisdiction under repealed foreign exchange law failed where specific empowerment was absent for issuing show cause notices.

Show cause notices issued under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were held without jurisdiction because the officer was not specifically empowered by the Central Government under Section 50. A general or deemed appointment under the Foreign Exchange Management Act could not replace the specific authority required to initiate proceedings under the repealed enactment. The Court followed its prior Division Bench view on the same officer, and, no distinguishing circumstance or stay having been shown, quashed the notices and set aside the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notices issued under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by an officer appointed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 were without jurisdiction for want of valid empowerment.

Analysis: The governing provisions concerning repeal and savings were examined together with the requirement under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 that an adjudicating officer must be specifically empowered by the Central Government. The prior Division Bench view on the very same officer was followed, holding that a deemed or general appointment under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 could not substitute the specific empowerment required to initiate proceedings under the repealed enactment. No distinguishing feature or stay of the earlier decision was shown.

Conclusion: The show cause notices were held to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed and set aside; the writ petition was allowed.

---