https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83253 An amendment reducing the retention period for seized currency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as procedural and applicable to pending seizures, absent any saving provision preserving the earlier period. The amended provision's extension mechanism did not prevent its operation, and Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act did not apply because the case was not one of repeal. The petitioner was therefore entitled to return of the seized currency on this issue. The Special Director's appointment under the statutory notification was also held valid, and the officer had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice; the de facto doctrine further supported the notice. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:19:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83253 An amendment reducing the retention period for seized currency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as procedural and applicable to pending seizures, absent any saving provision preserving the earlier period. The amended provision's extension mechanism did not prevent its operation, and Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act did not apply because the case was not one of repeal. The petitioner was therefore entitled to return of the seized currency on this issue. The Special Director's appointment under the statutory notification was also held valid, and the officer had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice; the de facto doctrine further supported the notice. Case-Laws FEMA Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83253