Late-produced evidence needs a satisfactory explanation; prima facie failure to prove drawback contravention can justify stay of recovery.

Additional evidence was refused where the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for not producing a document during adjudication, and an affidavit created after the impugned order could not displace findings already recorded on enquiry material. The commentary also notes that interim waiver of predeposit may be granted where the record does not prima facie establish the alleged drawback contravention or penalty liability, especially when export consignments were examined before drawback was sanctioned and foreign enquiries produced no adverse report. The material therefore supports strict scrutiny of late-produced evidence, while recognising that stay of recovery may follow a strong prima facie case pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional documents sought to be produced by the applicant should be taken on record; (ii) Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of penalty and stay of recovery.

Issue (i): Whether additional documents sought to be produced by the applicant should be taken on record.

Analysis: The documents were intended to establish that another person was the proprietor of the concern and that the applicant was not liable for the drawback claim. However, one document had admittedly been available during the adjudication proceedings and no explanation was offered for its non-production earlier. The affidavit was executed after the impugned order. The adjudicating authority had already recorded findings, based on enquiry and other material, that the stated proprietor was fictitious and that the applicant was the real proprietor.

Conclusion: The additional documents were not admitted and the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of penalty and stay of recovery.

Analysis: The record did not prima facie show that the goods exported were different from those declared. The consignments had been examined before drawback was sanctioned, and the foreign enquiries had not resulted in any adverse report against the applicant. On the material before the Tribunal, a contravention attracting the drawback prohibition and penalty provisions was not established at this stage.

Conclusion: Predeposit of the penalty was waived and recovery was stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: The applicant failed on the request to introduce additional evidence, but obtained interim relief against recovery of the penalty pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence will not be received without a satisfactory explanation for earlier non-production, and interim waiver of predeposit may be granted where a strong prima facie case is made out and the alleged contravention is not yet established by the Department.

---