Restoration of stay application rejected where early hearing was already allowed and expeditious appeal disposal was the proper remedy.

The note states that restoration of a previously dismissed stay application, and a fresh stay on valuation and duty collection pending appeal, was not warranted after the appellant had earlier said the stay request was not being pressed and early hearing had been allowed. It explains that the proper course in those circumstances was expeditious disposal of the appeal rather than revival of the stay plea. On that reasoning, the request for restoration and interim stay was rejected, and the stay application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the stay application and grant of stay of valuation and duty collection pending the appeal could be allowed.

Analysis: The stay application had earlier been dismissed as infructuous when the early hearing application was allowed and the appellant stated that the stay request was not being pressed. The present prayer was directed not merely against recovery but against valuation and collection of duty for clearance of goods, which could not be granted in the circumstances. Since early hearing had already been allowed, the proper remedy available to the appellant was expeditious disposal of the appeal, not restoration of the stay application.

Conclusion: The request for restoration and stay was rejected, and the stay application was dismissed.

---