Timing of customs compliance determined prima facie waiver of pre-deposit where a later amendment could not be applied retrospectively.

Timing of compliance under Customs Notification No. 93/2004-Cus was treated as decisive for interim relief: the imported goods were diverted to the appellant's own unit in June 2008, before the amendment took effect on 16 July 2008. The notification had to be applied as it stood when the diversion occurred, and a later amendment could not, on these facts, be used to infer an earlier breach. The distinction between any possible violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and liability under the Customs Act was also relevant. On that basis, a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in view of the timing of the amendment to Customs Notification No. 93/2004-Cus.

Analysis: The imported goods were diverted to the appellant's own unit in June 2008, while the amendment to the Customs notification took effect only on 16-7-2008. The relevant obligation for compliance had to be tested against the Customs notification as it stood when the diversion took place. A subsequent amendment could not, on the facts presented, be used to conclude a violation for an earlier diversion. The distinction between any possible infraction of the Foreign Trade Policy and liability under the Customs Act was also relevant to the interim relief sought.

Conclusion: The appellant established a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery was granted.

---