Refund stay refused where High Court reference was only admitted; security by bond and bank guarantee protected revenue.

A blanket stay of a Tribunal order granting refund was refused because the High Court reference had only been admitted and had not produced any finding undermining the Tribunal's earlier conclusion. The Tribunal's view that the evidence was insufficient to sustain penalty under the customs provisions remained unchallenged in the stay proceedings, so the refund could not be kept in abeyance on that basis alone. Revenue protection was instead secured by requiring a bond to repay the refund with interest and a bank guarantee for the specified amount. The stay request was therefore dismissed subject to furnishing those securities.

---

---

Issues: Whether the operation of the Tribunal's order granting refund could be stayed pending determination of the reference by the High Court, and whether any stay should be made conditional on security.

Analysis: The order under challenge concerned refund of amounts already found due to the respondent, while the reference before the High Court had only been admitted and had not resulted in any finding affecting the Tribunal's conclusion. The Tribunal's earlier finding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain penalty under the relevant customs provisions remained unassailed in the stay application. In these circumstances, the request for blanket stay was not accepted, though protection of the revenue was addressed by requiring security in the form of a bond and bank guarantee.

Outcome: The application for stay was dismissed, subject to the respondent furnishing a bond to repay the refund with interest and a bank guarantee for the specified amount.

---