Pre-deposit requirement under foreign exchange law barred the appeal where no dispensation was granted.

The appeal could not be entertained because the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was not satisfied. The Tribunal's power to dispense with deposit was confined to cases showing undue hardship and a prima facie case, but the appellant neither complied with the earlier direction to deposit the penalty nor obtained relief in writ proceedings. As the condition precedent for maintaining the appeal remained unfulfilled, the appeal was held not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal could be entertained despite non-deposit of the penalty amount and absence of dispensation under the statutory pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The appeal was governed by the pre-deposit mandate under Section 52(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which requires deposit of the penalty amount before an appeal is preferred, subject to the Tribunal's discretion to dispense with deposit only on satisfaction of undue hardship and a prima facie case. The appellant did not comply with the Tribunal's earlier order directing deposit of the penalty and also failed to secure any relief in the writ proceedings. In these circumstances, the statutory condition precedent for maintaining the appeal remained unfulfilled.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable for want of compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and was dismissed.

---