Pre-deposit waiver refused where financial hardship was unproven, valuation was supported by comparable imports, and natural justice failed.

Waiver of pre-deposit was declined because the appellant failed to establish financial hardship, as his affidavit and oral statements were inconsistent on material facts and his disclosed income and family assets did not support inability to pay. The Tribunal also found no prima facie case to disturb the Commissioner's assessable value, which had been fixed by reference to contemporaneous imports and on the lowest comparable value. The natural justice objection was rejected because the affidavit relied on by the department had been specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice, and the appellant had not explained the long delay in filing a reply. Pre-deposit was ordered and full stay refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the confirmed duty and penalty, including on the grounds of financial hardship, prima facie merits, and alleged violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The appellant's affidavit and oral statements were found inconsistent on material facts, including his involvement in the import, the weight of the goods, and his income profile. The Tribunal held that the appellant had not established financial hardship, particularly in view of the disclosed income and family assets. On merits, the Tribunal found no reliable basis to disturb the assessable value fixed by the Commissioner, who had relied on contemporaneous imports and had in fact adopted the lowest value from the comparable data. The objection based on natural justice was rejected because the affidavit relied upon by the department had been specifically referred to in the show-cause notice, and the appellant had not explained the long delay in filing any reply.

Conclusion: The appellant was directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000 within four weeks, and full waiver and stay were declined.

---