Mandatory pre-deposit requirement defeats appeal where penalty deposit was not made and no dispensation was obtained.

Under Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, pre-deposit of the penalty was a mandatory for maintaining an appeal unless dispensation was granted on sufficient cause and undue hardship. Where the appellant failed to comply with the directed 20% deposit despite ample time and also did not appear or seek further relief, the appellate authority was entitled to reject the appeal as not maintainable without examining the merits. The operative effect is that non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit requirement defeats the appeal itself.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The appeal had been entertained subject to deposit of 20% of the penalty amount, but the appellant did not comply even after ample time and did not appear or seek further relief. Under Section 52(2), deposit of the penalty is mandatory for filing the appeal unless dispensation is granted on sufficient cause and undue hardship. The Tribunal also relied on the settled position that where a statutory pre-deposit condition is not fulfilled, the appellate authority is competent to reject the appeal and need not proceed to examine the merits.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly held not maintainable for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory condition for pursuing the appeal was not satisfied, so the challenge to the penalty order could not be entertained on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes pre-deposit of the penalty a mandatory condition for appeal, failure to comply with that condition, absent dispensation, justifies dismissal of the appeal without examination on merits.

---