TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 554
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te exports proceeds to the tune of US$ 3,21,290.90 in contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973. 3. This appeal is filed in the name of partnership firm M/s. B.D. Exports and its two partners namely Ramjee Mishra and Amresh Mishra but court fees paid only for a single appeal. When this defect is pointed out to the Counsel appearing for the appellants, he made an oral prayer that these appeals may be treated as having been filed by partnership firm alone and names of partners can be disregarded. Therefore, this appeal is taken up as an appeal filed by partnership firm only. Ld. Counsel has subsequently filed a formal application for withdrawal of the appeals filed by the partners and also a written submission which are taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er a complaint is filed under section 16 before the adjudicating authority which was totally absent in FER Act, 1973. Under the provisions of FER Act, 1973 adjudicating officer can take notice of contravention by issuing a show-cause notice whereafter the noticee is required to file a reply and proceedings can be held if the adjudicating officer is not satisfied with the reply, if any, to the show-cause notice. The argument of the Ld. Counsel that after repeal and replacement of FER Act, 1973 new procedure prescribed under FEMA, 1999 will apply is fallacious because section 49(4) of FEMA, 1999 clearly save the provisions of repealed FER Act, 1973. It is appropriate to refer to provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 49 of FEMA 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overned by the provisions of FER Act, 1973. Therefore, this appeal has to be decided under the law proper which is none else but FER Act, 1973. Therefore, the argument that this appeal is filed under section 19(2) of FEMA, 1999 is fallacious and does not contain any merit. 7. It is well settled in law that whenever a law is altered during the pendency of any action, the remedy or the rights of the parties are required to be decided according to the law as it existed when the action began unless new statute shows intention to vary such rights. There is no contrary, explicit or implicit intention available found in section 49 of FEMA, 1999. Rather a saving clause is specifically incorporated in sub-section (6) of section 49 which states that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absence of saving clause is, by itself, not material for consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new enactment. In other words, a clear legislative intention of the re-enacted enactment has to be inferred and gathered whether it intended to preserve all the rights and liabilities of a repealed statute intact or modify or to obliterate them altogether." (p. 373) 9. Thus, it is well settled that effect of repeal of a statute and replacement thereof by another statute cannot obliterate rights acquired or accrued and liabilities incurred during its operation but permit continuation or institution of any legal proceeding or records to any remedy which may have been available before the repeal or enforcement of such rights and l....