Valuation dispute and related-party allegations failed to justify pre-deposit where price influence and flow-back were not shown.

A prima facie case supported waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a valuation dispute based on alleged related-party dealings, advertisement expenses, trade advance and limitation. Mere familial links between some partners of the distributor and the company's directors were insufficient to establish a related-party relationship. Advertisement expenditure by the distributor and payment of trade advance, without evidence showing how they affected price or established a flow-back, did not by themselves displace arm's length valuation or justify inclusion in assessable value. The record also showed a prima facie limitation issue. On that basis, recovery was stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a dispute concerning valuation on the basis of alleged related-party transactions, advertisement expenses, trade advance, and limitation.

Analysis: The appeal arose from adjudication of multiple notices on the same valuation dispute. The relationship between the manufacturing company and the distributor was not established merely because some partners of the distributor were related to the company's directors. The distributor's advertisement expenditure and the trade advance paid to it were not, by themselves, sufficient to show that the sale price lacked arm's length character or that there was a flow-back affecting assessable value. The order also did not demonstrate how those factors influenced the price or to what extent. In addition, the record disclosed a prima facie case on limitation.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.

---