Restoration after dismissal for non-compliance with pre-deposit was barred because it would amount to review of a final order.

An appeal finally dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition could not be restored in the absence of express procedural power, because such restoration would in substance amount to a review of the Tribunal's final order. The Tribunal held that the rejection had attained finality and that the rules invoked did not authorise revival of a disposed appeal. A dissenting view suggested restoration could be granted in appropriate cases to secure justice, but the majority rejected that approach. The restoration application was therefore held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement could be restored, or whether such restoration would amount to an impermissible review of a final order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the appeal had been finally rejected for failure to comply with the condition of deposit under the Customs Act and that the resulting order had attained finality. It further held that the procedural rules relied upon did not confer a power to restore such a finally disposed appeal, and that permitting restoration would in substance amount to reviewing the Tribunal's own final order. The view expressed in dissent was that restoration in appropriate circumstances would not amount to review and could be ordered to secure the ends of justice, but the majority did not accept that approach.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was not maintainable and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal finally dismissed by the Tribunal for non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition cannot be restored in the absence of an express power, because such restoration would amount to a review of the Tribunal's final order.

---