Pre-deposit waiver in customs dispute upheld where prima facie misuse of concessional duty and financial hardship did not justify interference.

Writ interference with a Tribunal's partial waiver of pre-deposit was declined because the Tribunal's prima facie view on liability was not shown to be erroneous. The dispute arose from imports of crude palm oil at a concessional customs duty rate, where the investigation suggested the goods were not used in manufacture and the concession may have been misused. The petitioner's claim of financial inability did not justify complete waiver in writ jurisdiction, so the direction to deposit Rs. 80 lakhs for hearing the appeal on merits was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the Tribunal's order granting only partial waiver of pre-deposit and requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 80 lakhs for hearing of the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The petition challenged the Tribunal's refusal to grant complete waiver of pre-deposit. The record indicated that the petitioner had imported crude palm oil at a concessional rate of customs duty, but the investigation suggested that the imported material was not used in manufacture and that the concession had been misused. The Tribunal's view on liability was not shown to be prima facie erroneous, and the financial inability asserted by the petitioner did not justify interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the Tribunal's partial waiver order failed.

---