Statutory limits on tribunal review bar reopening a pre-deposit order absent clerical error or fresh material.

The Tribunal's power to dispense with pre-deposit under section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is limited to cases of undue hardship, and any review power must come from statute. In the absence of an express provision, the Tribunal cannot reopen a concluded pre-deposit order merely because the appellants seek a different view on the merits. Only clerical or patent errors may be corrected under section 65; no error apparent on the face of the record or fresh material was shown. The earlier order was not invalid for brevity of reasons, and the request to review or modify it was rejected, with the appeals dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could review or modify its earlier pre-deposit order and dispense with the requirement of pre-deposit on the grounds urged by the appellants.

Analysis: The right of appeal under section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is subject to pre-deposit of the penalty, though the Tribunal may dispense with it on undue hardship. A review is not available as a matter of inherent power; it must be conferred by statute. Under the Act, the Tribunal's power is confined to correcting clerical errors under section 65, and an earlier pre-deposit order cannot be reopened merely because the appellants seek a different view on the merits. The grounds raised did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, nor any fresh material of the kind that could justify review or rectification. The absence of fuller reasons in the earlier order did not make it void or open to self-review.

Conclusion: The request to review or modify the pre-deposit order was rejected, and the appeals were dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit direction.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory review power, a tribunal cannot reopen or modify its own concluded order except to correct a clerical or patent error; a demand to re-argue the merits or seek a different view on undue hardship is not a ground for review.

---