Pre-deposit condition upheld in foreign exchange penalty appeal, with time extended for compliance before merits hearing.

A pre-deposit condition requiring 50% of the penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustained because it was reasonable on the facts and the appellant had not shown sufficient grounds for complete waiver. The Court noted the finding of abetment in contravention relating to unauthorised remittance of foreign exchange and accepted that financial hardship alone did not justify dispensing with the deposit requirement. The challenge to the condition therefore failed in substance, but the appellant was granted eight additional weeks to make the deposit, after which the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the penalty imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as a condition for hearing the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The appeal challenged the Tribunal's direction requiring a deposit of 50% of the penalty before the appeal could be heard on merits. The record indicated that the appellant had been found to have abetted contravention in relation to unauthorised remittance of foreign exchange, and the appellant had also relied on financial hardship to seek relief from the deposit requirement. The Court found that the direction was reasonable in the facts, and noted that the appellant had not satisfactorily established circumstances justifying complete waiver of the deposit requirement.

Conclusion: The deposit direction was upheld. The appellant was, however, granted an additional eight weeks to deposit the amount, and upon deposit the Tribunal was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the pre-deposit condition failed in substance, but limited procedural relief was granted by extending the time for compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-deposit condition for hearing an appeal may be sustained where it is reasonable on the facts and the appellant has not shown sufficient grounds for complete waiver, though the appellate court may extend time for compliance.

---