Undervaluation dispute and stay relief: tribunal found only partial waiver justified on prima facie evidentiary material.

In a stay application concerning alleged undervaluation of imported goods, the majority held that contemporaneous import data and documents recovered from other importers constituted sufficient prima facie material, and that the appellant's retraction of a representative's statement did not justify complete waiver at the interim stage. The dissent considered the valuation case to rest on suspicion rather than reliable corroboration, noted that the retraction was timely, and stressed that Section 138B of the Customs Act had not been properly complied with before relying on the statement. The appellant was therefore directed to make a partial pre-deposit, with the balance stayed on compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a stay application arising from alleged undervaluation of imported goods, the appellant was entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit or only a partial pre-deposit, having regard to the reliability of the retracted statement, contemporaneous import evidence, and the existence of a prima facie case.

Analysis: The majority view accepted that the department had relied on contemporaneous import data and documents recovered from other importers to support the valuation adopted in the notice, and held that the retraction of the statement recorded from the appellant's representative was not sufficient at the stay stage to displace the evidentiary material relied upon by the department. The dissenting view found that the valuation was supported more by suspicion than by reliable corroboration, that the retraction was timely and addressed to the higher investigating authority, and that Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 had not been properly complied with before relying upon the statement. On the balance of convenience, the majority considered that complete waiver was not warranted, but that a moderated pre-deposit would protect revenue while permitting the appeal to be heard.

Conclusion: The appellant was not granted full waiver of pre-deposit; it was directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs in addition to the amount already paid, with waiver of the balance and stay of recovery upon compliance.

---