Mandatory pre-deposit for customs appeals cannot be bypassed in writ jurisdiction absent exceptional grounds.

Where a statute mandates pre-deposit for an appeal to CESTAT against a customs penalty order, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to waive or reduce that requirement absent exceptional grounds. The petitions arose from penalties imposed on customs house agent licence holders for allowing misuse of their licences in a fraudulent import operation, and the Court noted the duty of customs brokers to act with diligence. On the facts, the licences had been permitted to be used without proper control, so no basis was made out to dilute the statutory appellate condition. The request for waiver or reduction of pre-deposit was rejected and the writ petitions were not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court should waive or reduce the mandatory pre-deposit required for filing appeals before CESTAT against the customs penalty order.

Analysis: The petitions challenged large penalties imposed on customs house agent licence holders for permitting misuse of their licences in a fraudulent import operation. The Court noted the statutory responsibility of customs brokers to act with diligence and the limited scope of interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction where the statute prescribes pre-deposit for appeal. On the facts, the Court found that the licences had been allowed to be used without control and that no ground was made out to dilute the statutory appellate requirement.

Conclusion: The request for waiver or reduction of pre-deposit was rejected, and the writ petitions were not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute mandates pre-deposit for an appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to bypass or dilute that requirement in the absence of exceptional grounds.

---