Strong prima facie case justified unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in stay proceedings.

In stay proceedings, the Tribunal held that the applicant had shown a strong prima facie case for interim protection and was entitled to unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. It relied on the Supreme Court ruling in International Auto Ltd. to note that non-adoption of Rule 57F(4) at the time of clearance could not, by itself, justify denial of relief. The limitation objection was noted, but the operative basis for relief remained the strength of the prima facie case on the materials placed before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to unconditional waiver of the pre-deposit of duty and penalty in the stay proceedings.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the appellant relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in International Auto Ltd. to contend that non-adoption of Rule 57F(4) at the time of clearance could not by itself justify denial of relief. In view of that binding position, and on the materials placed before it, the Tribunal found that the appellant had made out a strong prima facie case. The limitation objection was noted, but the order turned on the existence of a strong prima facie case for interim protection.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to unconditional waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

---