Pre-deposit waiver and stay of recovery granted where duty and interest were to be deposited and bank guarantee adjusted.

Import under Notification No. 158/95-Cus failed because the re-export condition was not fulfilled, raising the question whether pre-deposit could be waived pending appeal. The Tribunal treated prior precedent as permitting recourse to Notification No. 94/96-Cus where the duty liability was discharged, and held that deposit of the duty and interest payable, together with adjustment of any amount recoverable through encashment of the bank guarantee, would satisfy the requirement for hearing the appeal. On that basis, recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal, subject to compliance within the time granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the appeal proceedings, subject to deposit of duty and interest and enforcement of the bank guarantee.

Analysis: The dispute arose from import made under Notification No. 158/95-Cus, where the condition of re-export within the stipulated period was not fulfilled. The Tribunal noted that a prior decision had accepted recourse to Notification No. 94/96-Cus as an alternative where the duty liability was satisfied. In view of that precedent, the Tribunal held that deposit of the duty and interest payable, together with adjustment of any amount recoverable through encashment of the bank guarantee, would meet the requirement for hearing the appeal. Subject to compliance within the time granted, recovery was not to proceed during pendency of the appeal.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was granted subject to compliance, and stay against recovery was allowed during pendency of the appeal.

---