The Calcutta High Court held that appeals against FERA penalty orders retain criminal character and may be heard as criminal appeals even after FEMA replaced FERA.
Calcutta HC Rules FERA Penalty Appeals as Criminal in Nature
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that appellate proceedings arising from penalty orders under the now-repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) retain their penal character and can be entertained as criminal appeals, even when filed after the enactment of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999.
The court clarified that despite the civil and regulatory nature of FEMA, proceedings initiated under FERA involved adjudication of penal liabilities and therefore must be treated in continuity with criminal jurisprudence. This ensures that appellants are not deprived of remedies available under criminal law for liabilities incurred pre-FEMA.
Judges relied on settled precedent distinguishing between substantive repeal and procedural transition, holding that repeal of a penal law does not erase liabilities or remedies accrued prior to its replacement. The decision affirms the right to challenge historical FERA penalties through appropriate criminal appellate forums.
For practitioners handling legacy FERA cases, this ruling preserves access to criminal appellate remedies and reinforces the principle that statutory replacement does not extinguish pre-existing penal consequences. Legal teams should assess jurisdiction and forum carefully when contesting pre-FEMA enforcement actions.
