Pre-deposit waiver on a strong prima facie case where the alleged duty default predated the amended penalty consequence.

Where an alleged duty default occurred before the amended Rule 8 forfeiture consequence came into force, the interim pre-deposit requirement was not insisted upon. The record showed that duty and interest had been paid, and the appellants established a strong prima facie case against the demand. On that basis, recovery of the disputed amount was stayed at the interim stage and the appeal was allowed to proceed without pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the light of the timing of the alleged duty default and the amendment to Rule 8, the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The alleged defaults occurred in February and March 2005, when the amended forfeiture consequence for monthly duty payment was not yet in force. The record indicated that duty and interest had been paid, and the Tribunal found that, on the facts placed before it, the appellants had a strong prima facie case. In such circumstances, insistence on pre-deposit was not warranted at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit was waived and recovery of the disputed amount was stayed in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted because the challenge raised a substantial prima facie objection to the demand, and the appeal was permitted to proceed without pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legal consequence invoked by the revenue was not in force at the time of the alleged default, and the appellants showed a strong prima facie case, pre-deposit and recovery may be stayed at the interim stage.

---