Predeposit waiver under customs law upheld in part, with firm's deposit sustained and partner granted individualised relief.

A predeposit order under the Customs Act was sustained where the Tribunal recorded adequate prima facie reasons, including discrepancies in export valuation, overseas entry documents, a textile research report, and cancelled DEPB licences linked to forged bank realisation certificates; complete waiver was therefore refused for the firm. The partner's predeposit was separately considered on the facts, and the higher deposit requirement was set aside in his case because the totality of circumstances justified individualised relief. The firm's deposit direction remained in force, with time for compliance extended.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing predeposit of Rs. 1 crore by the firm under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing predeposit of Rs. 25 lakhs by the partner, and in declining to grant a complete waiver.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing predeposit of Rs. 1 crore by the firm under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Tribunal found a strong prima facie case against the exporter on the basis of the overseas bills of entry, the disparity between the declared export value and the foreign entry value, the report of the textile research body, and the cancellation of multiple DEPB licences on the basis of forged bank realisation certificates. The Court held that the Tribunal had furnished adequate reasons and that the material did not justify complete waiver of predeposit.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the firm to deposit Rs. 1 crore was upheld and was not interfered with.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing predeposit of Rs. 25 lakhs by the partner, and in declining to grant a complete waiver.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the partner's liability required separate consideration in the facts of the case. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, and while maintaining the Tribunal's view that a complete waiver was not warranted against the firm, the Court found that the partner should not be required to make the predeposit demanded by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the partner to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs was set aside and waiver was granted to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of deleting the partner's predeposit obligation, while the firm's predeposit direction remained in force and the time for deposit was extended.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercising jurisdiction over predeposit orders, the Court will not interfere where the Tribunal has given adequate prima facie reasons for insisting on deposit, but may grant relief on a distinct and individualised basis to one appellant if the totality of circumstances so warrants.

---