Repeal and saving
Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 deals with repeal and saving. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) is hereby repealed and the Appellate Board constituted under sub-section (1) of section 52 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) shall stand dissolved. The Act came into force on 01 Jun 2000.
(1) The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973) is hereby repealed and the Appellate Board constituted under sub-section (1) of section 52 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act) shall stand dissolved.
(2) On the dissolution of the said Appellate Board, the person appointed as Chairman of the Appellate Board and every other person appointed as Member and holding office as such immediately before such date shall vacate their respective offices and no such Chairman or other person shall be entitled to claim any compensation for the premature termination of the term of his office or of any contract of service.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention under section 51 of the repealed Act after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act.
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) all offences committed under the repealed Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed.
(5) Notwithstanding such repeal,--
(a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any license, permission, authorization or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act;
(b) any appeal preferred to the Appellate Board under sub-section (2) of section 52 of the repealed Act but not disposed of before the commencement of this Act shall stand transferred to and shall disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Act;
(c) every appeal from any decision or order of the Appellate Board under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of section 52 of the repealed Act shall, if not filed before the commencement of this Act, be filled before the High Court within a period of sixty days of such commencement:
Provided that the High Court may entertain such appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal with the said period.
(6) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), the mention of particular matters in sub-sections (2), (4) and (5) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeal.
Section 49, The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (Act 42 of 1999).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Tulip Star Hotels LTD vs Special Director of Enforcement
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Transactions between two licensed Full Fledged Money Changers (FFMCs) for sale and purchase of foreign currency, effected through authorized representatives, at rates agreed between parties, with payment made through negotiable instruments as stipulated in Paragraph 9 of RBI's Memorandum of FLM, do not constitute violation of Sections 6(4), 6(5), and 7 of FERA or Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum of FLM, provided both transacting parties are licensed entities. The requirement under Paragraph 3 regarding authorized officials applies to transactions conducted within a money changer's own premises with its customers, not to inter-FFMC transactions. The broader autonomy granted under Paragraph 9 must be harmoniously read with Paragraph 3, and strict verification of individual representative credentials is not mandated when both transacting parties are authorized FFMCs with representatives present during transaction.
On this section: Penalty provision under FEMA under which original penalty was imposed. Court set aside penalty as being based on erroneous interpretation of FERA provisions.
-
Peter Kerkar vs Special Director of Enforcement
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When two licensed Full Fledged Money Changers (FFMCs) enter into foreign currency transactions carried through their respective authorized representatives, payment made through negotiable instruments such as pay orders, and both parties comply with the RBI Memorandum on Foreign Listed Money, no violation of Section 6(4), 6(5), or paragraph 3 of the FERA 1973 and FLM Memorandum occurs. An FFMC cannot be held liable for violations committed by another FFMC after their transaction has concluded. The concurrent findings doctrine does not apply when appellate courts fail to properly interpret the applicable statutory provisions.
On this section: Provisions under which penalty was imposed against the Appellants; Court set aside the penalty as unjustified.
-
Deepharma Ltd. vs The Chief Enforcement Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person is exonerated on merits in departmental adjudication proceedings on identical charges and facts, and the departmental authorities themselves record a categorical and unambiguous finding that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust and an abuse of process of law to allow criminal proceedings to continue against such person on the same allegations and facts. However, if the exoneration in departmental proceedings is on technical grounds or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits, or if the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, the criminal proceedings can continue. The test is whether: (1) charges in departmental and criminal proceedings are identical, and (2) exoneration in departmental proceedings is on merits holding that there is no contravention of the provisions of any Act.
On this section: Procedural framework for adjudication proceedings
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 49
What have the courts held on Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act?
Tulip Star Hotels LTD vs Special Director of Enforcement (16 Jan 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Penalty provision under FEMA under which original penalty was imposed. Court set aside penalty as being based on erroneous interpretation of FERA provisions. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2014.
How do I find court cases under Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Fema 49, section 49 Fema, section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Tulip Star Hotels LTD vs Special Director of Enforcement (16 Jan 2014).
What should I read with Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on General Clauses Act 6 (Effect of repeal), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act come into force?
Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, cited as Fema 49, came into force on 01 Jun 2000, having been enacted on 29 Dec 1999. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.