Prima facie case for unconditional stay rejected where investigation-based duty demand and penalties supported partial pre-deposit.

In a stay application arising from allegations of clandestine removal, the Tribunal held that the appellants had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. The demand had been confirmed and penalties imposed on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, and the appellants also did not appear despite repeated listings. At the stay stage, the Tribunal found no basis for complete waiver and directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty and the other applicants to deposit 50% of the penalty within eight weeks.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for unconditional stay of the confirmed duty and penalties arising from allegations of clandestine removal.

Analysis: The appellants did not appear despite repeated listings. On a consideration of the impugned order and the material then available, the Tribunal noted that the demand had been confirmed and penalties imposed on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. At the stay stage, the appellants were held not to have established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for complete waiver of deposit.

Outcome: The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty and the other applicants to deposit 50% of the penalty within eight weeks, with the stay petitions disposed of accordingly.

---