Prima facie evidence of conscious participation was lacking, so penalty pre-deposit was waived and recovery stayed.

On a prima facie review, mere negotiation with the foreign buyer and execution of a memorandum of agreement with the exporter were held insufficient to show conscious participation in any overvaluation of exported garments for excess drawback. In the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty and stay of its recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty and stay of its recovery on the ground that the material did not prima facie establish his knowing participation in the alleged overvaluation of exported garments to secure excess drawback.

Analysis: The order records that there was no direct evidence of the alleged conspiracy. The circumstances referred to by the adjudicating authority showed only that the appellant had negotiated with the foreign buyer and entered into a memorandum of agreement with the exporter. These facts, by themselves, were not found sufficient at the prima facie stage to show conscious participation in any overvaluation for wrongful drawback.

Outcome: Waiver of deposit of the penalty was granted and recovery of the penalty was stayed.

---