Pre-deposit in customs appeal upheld where discretion was properly exercised and sickness status did not exempt deposit obligation.

The statutory right of appeal under customs law was treated as conditional on pre-deposit, and the appellate tribunal's order requiring only 25% deposit was upheld because it was discretionary, reasonable, and unsupported by any showing of undue hardship on relevant materials. A claim for exemption based on sick industrial company status was rejected, as the protection under the sickness legislation did not extend to the principal pre-deposit obligation in appellate proceedings. The limited pre-deposit direction was therefore maintained, with time enlarged for compliance and restoration of the appeal upon deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order directing pre-deposit of 25% of the duty demanded under the customs appellate provision called for interference; (ii) whether the appellant could claim protection from deposit on the ground that it was a sick industrial company.

Issue (i): whether the order directing pre-deposit of 25% of the duty demanded under the customs appellate provision called for interference

Analysis: The statutory scheme makes the right of appeal conditional upon deposit of the duty or penalty, and waiver is justified only where undue hardship is shown on relevant materials. On the facts, the appellate tribunal had already granted substantial relief by dispensing with 75% of the deposit and requiring only 25% to be pre-deposited. The order was treated as discretionary, reasonable, bona fide, and free from perversity or patent illegality, so no ground for judicial interference was made out.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit direction was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant could claim protection from deposit on the ground that it was a sick industrial company

Analysis: The protection available to a sick industrial company under the special sickness statute does not extend to the obligation to make a principal pre-deposit in appellate proceedings. The reasoning accepted that such deposit does not fall within the statutory categories protected by the sickness legislation, and the same approach was applied to customs duty liability.

Conclusion: The plea based on sickness status was rejected and no exemption from deposit was available.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order imposing a limited pre-deposit was maintained, while time was enlarged for compliance and restoration of the appeal before the tribunal upon deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with a discretionary pre-deposit order is unwarranted unless the appellant shows undue hardship on relevant materials; sickness status alone does not exempt the appellant from the statutory deposit obligation.

---