Prima facie case for pre-deposit waiver rejected where clandestine removal finding was supported by investigation and admissions.

The Tribunal held that the appellants had not shown a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit because the Commissioner's finding of clandestine manufacture and removal was supported by the investigation record and by a representative's statement that did not deny receipt of goods during the disputed period. At the interim stage, the impugned order could not be treated as based only on conjectures or surmises. Complete waiver was therefore refused, but the Tribunal granted partial relief by reducing the pre-deposit requirement and staying recovery of the balance on compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants made out a strong prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties, and if not, what quantum of pre-deposit should be ordered pending disposal of the appeals.

Analysis: The order recorded that the Commissioner's finding of clandestine manufacture and removal was supported by the investigation record and by the statement of the representative of one appellant, who did not deny receipt of goods during the disputed period. On that basis, the Tribunal found no sufficient reason at the interim stage to treat the impugned order as based only on conjectures and surmises, and held that no strong prima facie case existed for total waiver of pre-deposit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal nevertheless granted partial relief by reducing the pre-deposit requirement and staying recovery of the balance on compliance.

Outcome: Complete waiver was refused, partial pre-deposit was directed, and recovery of the remaining duty and penalty amounts was stayed on compliance.

---