Discretionary pre-deposit orders under customs law require proof of arbitrariness or undue hardship before writ interference is warranted.

Writ interference with a discretionary pre-deposit order under the Customs Act is not justified unless the refusal of waiver is arbitrary, irrational, whimsical, or perverse. On the facts, the valuation dispute was at least arguable, the demand was not palpably erroneous, no financial hardship was pleaded to support total waiver, and the authority relied on sales to unrelated buyers and surrounding valuation material to fix a partial deposit. The direction for partial pre-deposit was therefore a permissible exercise of discretion, and complete waiver was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the order directing partial pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether complete waiver was justified on the ground of undue hardship.

Analysis: The power to waive pre-deposit is discretionary and is to be exercised having regard to hardship. The Court held that writ interference with such an order is not justified unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary, whimsical, irrational, or perverse. On the facts, the duty demand was not palpably erroneous, the valuation dispute was at least arguable on either side, and no financial hardship was pleaded to support total waiver. The Commissioner had also relied on sales to unrelated buyers and the surrounding valuation material to fix a partial pre-deposit, which did not disclose any manifest illegality.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order directing pre-deposit of Rs. 5 crores failed; complete waiver was not warranted and the impugned order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because the partial pre-deposit direction was a permissible exercise of discretion and did not call for interference under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not interfere with a discretionary pre-deposit order unless the refusal of waiver is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, or perverse, and mere arguability of the underlying demand does not by itself establish undue hardship warranting complete waiver.

---