Early hearing requests need more than recurring dispute claims; contractual hardship was not enough to secure priority.

An application for early hearing in a duty dispute was rejected because a recurring issue, by itself, was not treated as sufficient ground where no other effective remedy was shown. The appellant's compliance with the pre-deposit condition was noted, but the claimed contractual hardship with buyers was not accepted as a basis for special priority. The connected request was also rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for early hearing should be allowed on the ground that the dispute was recurring in nature and that the appellant was facing contractual hardship with buyers.

Analysis: The request was considered in the context of a duty dispute where the appellant had already complied with the pre-deposit condition. The stated grounds were treated as insufficient because a recurring issue by itself does not justify early hearing unless no other effective remedy remains. The asserted contractual difficulty with buyers was not accepted as a ground warranting special consideration.

Conclusion: The application for early hearing was rejected, and the connected request was also rejected.

---