Pre-deposit requirement under foreign exchange law enforced strictly where no part-payment was made and compliance was absent.

The pre-deposit requirement under foreign exchange law was treated as mandatory, subject only to dispensation for undue hardship. Because the appellant did not comply with the Tribunal's earlier order, made no deposit even in part, and instead sought recall and instalments, the statutory condition was not satisfied. The clear wording of the deposit provision left no scope for equitable relaxation in the absence of compliance. The appeal was therefore liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under the foreign exchange law.

Analysis: The appeal was subject to the statutory requirement of depositing the penalty, subject only to dispensation in cases of undue hardship. The request for recall and instalments did not reflect compliance with the earlier order, and no deposit was made even in part. The statutory language governing the deposit requirement was treated as clear, leaving no scope for relaxation on equitable grounds where the appellant had not complied with the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition, and the dismissal was warranted.

---