Pre-deposit waiver under foreign trade law sustained where export obligation remained unfulfilled and no arbitrariness was shown.

Discretion to waive pre-deposit under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act was upheld where the appellate authority considered the record, noted admitted non-fulfilment of export obligation, and found no basis for waiver. Financial hardship and BIFR reference did not justify relief because the export obligation period had already expired before that reference, and no material showed non-application of mind, perversity, or arbitrariness. The refusal to waive deposit was therefore sustained, with no interference warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Authority's refusal to waive the pre-deposit condition under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act was vitiated by non-application of mind or perversity.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the exercise of discretion while considering waiver of deposit as a condition for entertaining the appeal. The writ petitioner relied on financial hardship and reference to BIFR, but the relevant export obligation period had expired before that reference. The appellate authority considered the record, noted the admitted non-fulfilment of export obligation, and declined relief. No material showed that the authority ignored relevant factors or acted arbitrarily.

Conclusion: The refusal to waive pre-deposit was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---