Pre-deposit waiver under the Customs Act requires proof of undue hardship; unsupported financial claims do not justify complete dispensation.

Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act is not automatic and requires material showing undue hardship. The High Court noted that mere assertions of financial difficulty, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to justify dispensation of pre-deposit. It also found no adequate basis to conclude that the petitioner had established a strong prima facie case for complete waiver, and the Tribunal's order was not invalid merely because it directed pre-deposit. The challenge to the pre-deposit direction therefore failed, and the petitioner was not entitled to waiver.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 and interference with the Tribunal's order directing pre-deposit.

Analysis: The petitioner sought dispensation of the pre-deposit directed by the Tribunal, contending that it had a prima facie case, had not been involved in the alleged irregularities, and was under financial hardship. The Court held that a waiver under Section 129E is not automatic and must be supported by sufficient material showing undue hardship. Mere assertions of financial difficulty, without supporting evidence, were insufficient. The Court also found no basis to conclude that the petitioner had established a strong prima facie case warranting complete waiver, and therefore the Tribunal's order could not be treated as invalid for want of reasons alone.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to waiver of pre-deposit, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---