Condonation of delay fails where prolonged inaction and no bona fide explanation defeat the sufficient-cause standard.

Delay of 804 days in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation offered did not amount to sufficient cause. The Court treated the limitation scheme under the applicable foreign exchange framework as procedural, but still required the appellant to show due diligence and bona fide effort. Repeated inaction, failure to follow up, non-removal of objections within time, and the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged lapse meant the appellant did not meet the condonation standard, and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay of 804 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The appeal was filed with extreme delay and the explanation offered did not constitute sufficient cause. The limitation scheme under the applicable foreign exchange was treated as procedural, but the Court held that even on that footing the appellant had failed to show due diligence or bona fide effort. The record showed repeated inaction, lack of follow-up, failure to cure objections in time, and no satisfactory explanation for the long lapse.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was rejected.

---