Mandatory pre-deposit cannot be met through a bank guarantee given for provisional release of goods.

A bank guarantee furnished only for provisional release of detained goods could not be repurposed to satisfy the mandatory pre-deposit required for maintaining an appeal. Even if the guarantee were treated as available for that purpose, the amount was still insufficient to meet the statutory deposit condition. The court therefore held that the petitioner had not complied with the pre-deposit requirement, and the appeal was not entertainable for want of compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could maintain the appeal by treating the bank guarantee furnished for provisional release of goods, or the value of the detained goods, as compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement.

Analysis: The bank guarantee had been furnished for the limited purpose of securing provisional release of the goods and could not be diverted to satisfy a different statutory purpose. Even assuming the bank guarantee could be invoked towards pre-deposit, the amount available was insufficient to meet the required deposit. The petitioner had therefore not complied with the condition necessary for maintaining the appeal.

Conclusion: The appeal was not liable to be entertained for want of the requisite pre-deposit, and the petition was dismissed.

---