Fraudulent import of restricted goods and failure to verify KYC justified substantial pre-deposit for appeal hearing.

A prima facie fraudulent import scheme involving restricted fire crackers through a non-existent importer justified insistence on substantial pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. The record indicated that the importer was not found at the declared address, the IEC had been obtained on fabricated documents, and multiple persons facilitated clearance without the required licence. The CHA also failed to verify the importer's identity, address, and KYC particulars. In these circumstances, the Tribunal required compliance with the specified pre-deposit and granted waiver of the balance only after that condition was met.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the material placed, the appellants were required to make pre-deposit as a condition for hearing of the appeal in a case involving alleged fraudulent import of restricted goods through a non-existent importer.

Analysis: The record showed prima facie that the importer did not exist at the declared address and that the IEC had been obtained by using fabricated and fake documents. The import chain involved multiple persons who facilitated clearance of restricted fire crackers without the necessary licence, and the CHA had admittedly not verified the importer's identity, address, or KYC particulars. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case of fraudulent design and revenue evasion, justifying insistence on substantial pre-deposit while granting waiver of the balance during the pendency of the appeal.

Conclusion: The appellants were directed to make the specified pre-deposit, and waiver of the remaining amount was granted only on compliance with that direction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prima facie case of fraudulent import through a non-existent importer and failure to verify mandatory client particulars, substantial pre-deposit may be insisted upon as a condition for appeal.

---