https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32515 An adjudicating authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not maintain an appeal against an Appellate Board order without specific authorization from the Central Government; the High Court appeal was therefore incompetent. The SC also held that the High Court's jurisdiction under section 54 was limited to questions of law and did not permit interference with unimpeached factual findings. Where the Board found that contravention of section 9(3) was not established, and a confession had been retracted and required corroboration, restoration of the adjudication order was unjustified. The appellate order in favour of the appellant was restored. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32515 An adjudicating authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not maintain an appeal against an Appellate Board order without specific authorization from the Central Government; the High Court appeal was therefore incompetent. The SC also held that the High Court's jurisdiction under section 54 was limited to questions of law and did not permit interference with unimpeached factual findings. Where the Board found that contravention of section 9(3) was not established, and a confession had been retracted and required corroboration, restoration of the adjudication order was unjustified. The appellate order in favour of the appellant was restored. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32515