THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 11-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 838 
THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITED 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3191-3194 of 2011) 
APRIL 11, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - ss. 19(2) 
and 49 - Cause of action arose when FERA was in force, but 
C show cause notices and impugned orders issued when FEMA 
was in force - Appeal filed uls. 19 of FEMA - Rejection of, 
by Appellate Tribunal constituted under FEMA, applying the 
first proviso to sub section (2) of s. 52 of FERA instead of 
following the proviso to sub section (2) to s. 19 of FEMA -
D Held: Limitation for filing appeal has to be considered uls. 
19(2) of FEMA - Provision relating to limitation is procedural 
- In absence of any provision to contrary, the law in force on 
date of initiation of appeal irrespective of the date of .. ~crual 
of the cause of action for the original order, would govern the 
E period of limitation - Section 52(2) can apply only to an 
appeal to the Appellate Board and not to any Appellate 
tribunal -
Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the 
adjudicating officer had passed the orders with reference to 
the violation of the provisions of FERA, as the appeal against 
F such order was to the appellate tribunal constituted under 
FEMA, necessarily s. 19(2) of FEMA alone would apply and 
it is not possible to import the provisions of s. 52(2) of FERA 
-
Tribunal and High Court misdirected themselves in 
assuming that the period of limitation was governed by s. 
52(2) of FERA - Appellate Tribunal can entertain the appeal 
G after the prescribed period of 45 days if it is satisfied, that there 
was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said 
period - Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh 
H 
838 
• 
• 
THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITED v. UNION OF 
839 
INDIA & ORS. 
consideration - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - ss. 
A 
52(2), 8(3) and 8(4) - General Clauses Act - s. 6. 
Substantive law and procedural law - Distinction between 
- Held: Substantive law refers to body of rules that creates, 
defines and regulates rights and liabilities - Right of appeal 8 
may be a substantive right but the procedure for filing the 
appeal including the period of /imitation cannot be called a 
substantive right - Aggrieved person cannot claim any vested 
right claiming that he should be governed by the old provision 
pertaining to period of limitation - Procedural law establishes C 
a mechanism for determining those rights and liabilities and 
a machinery for enforcing them -
Procedural law is 
retrospective meaning thereby that it would apply even to acts 
or transactions under the repealed Act - Right of appeal 
conferred u/s. 19(1) of FEMA is a substantive right -
Procedure for filing an appeal under sub-section (2) of s. 19 
D 
. as a/so the proviso to sub-section (2) of s. 19 conferring power 
on the Tribunal to condone delay in filing the appeal if 
sufficient cause is shown, are procedural rights. 
Ap~ 1ellant Company imported various consignments 
E 
for home consumption and opened letters of credit in the 
year 1996. Thereafter, the Company forwarded the 
Exchange Control Copies of bills of entry (ECC-bills of 
entry) to banks (authorized dealers) for submitting to 
Reserve Bank of India. The authorized dealers did not 
F 
forward the ECC bills of entry to RBI. The Directorate of 
Enforcement passed orders imposing penalty on the 
Company for contravention of Section 8(3), Section 8(4) 
of FERA read with sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 49 
of FERA and issued show cause notices to the Company 
G 
as the Company had failed to furnish the required bills/ 
information/documents and also held that an appeal 
would lie before the Appellate Tribunal after depositing 
the amount of penalty imposed within 45 days from the 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A date on which the order was served. The Company 
informed the Enforcement Directorate that it was due to 
the mistake of the authorized dealer that the bills of entry 
were not forwarded to them in time. Subsequently RBI 
carried out necessary corrections and deleted the entries 
B from their records and regularized the transactions and 
requested the Directorate of Enforcement to drop the 
proceedings initiated against the Company. However, the 
Company did not hear anything from the Directorate, 
thus, filed appeals against the said orders in 2004 before 
c the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Excha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.