UNION OF INDIA Vs. YOGESH MEHTA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The submissions of the learned counsel were heard on the earlier date. For the sake of convenience, with a view to understand the controversy, we refer to the facts of Appeal No.4/2016. The issue involved in both the Appeals is of maintainability of revision applications filed by the Enforcement Directorate of the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (for short "Appellate Tribunal"). On 31st May 2002, the Special Director of Enforcement issued a memorandum against the respondents. The first respondent was charged with the contravention of Section 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short "FERA"). The second respondent was charged under sub-section (2) of Section 64 of FERA for aiding and abetting in the said transaction.

(2.) On the basis of a show-cause-notice, an adjudication was made by the Special Director of Enforcement. By an order dated 17th June 2010, the Special Director of Enforcement dropped all the charges against the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the appellant purported to file a revision application before the Appellate Tribunal established under section 18 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short "FEMA"). We may note that FEMA came into force from 1st June 2000. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 49 of FEMA, FERA was repealed. Sub-section (1) further provides that the Appellate Board constituted under FERA shall stand dissolved.

(3.) By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the provisions of FERA and FEMA came to the conclusion that after the repeal of FERA, the revision application filed by the appellant was not maintainable in law. In the impugned order subject matter of Appeal No. 5 of 2016, a similar view has been taken by the Appellate Tribunal.