Pre-deposit waiver applications do not automatically require an oral hearing when discretion is exercised objectively and reasonably.

A discretionary waiver of pre-deposit under the third proviso to Section 4-M(1) does not, by itself, require an oral hearing before the appellate authority decides the application. The statute makes pre-deposit the rule and dispensation an exception, and it does not expressly import the separate merits hearing under Section 4-M(2) into the waiver stage. Natural justice is satisfied if the authority considers the relevant facts, including undue hardship, and exercises the discretion objectively and reasonably. An order refusing or conditioning waiver is not invalid solely because no personal hearing was given.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate authority was required to grant an oral hearing before deciding an application for dispensing with pre-deposit of penalty under the third proviso to Section 4-M(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

Analysis: The pre-deposit requirement is the rule, and dispensation of deposit is an exception vested in the Appellate authority by a discretionary proviso. The statute does not expressly require a personal hearing at the stage of considering waiver of deposit. The principle of natural justice does not mandate an oral hearing in every case where discretion is exercised on a pre-deposit application, particularly in revenue matters. What is required is application of mind to the relevant facts, including undue hardship, and the discretion must be exercised reasonably and objectively. The separate hearing contemplated by Section 4-M(2) for disposal of the appeal on merits cannot be read into the third proviso to Section 4-M(1).

Conclusion: No, the Appellate authority was not bound to afford an oral hearing before deciding whether to dispense with pre-deposit of penalty; the order was not vitiated on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes pre-deposit a condition for entertainment of an appeal and merely confers discretionary power to waive that condition, the absence of an express requirement of oral hearing means that refusal or conditional dispensation of deposit is not invalid solely for want of a personal hearing, provided the discretion is exercised objectively and reasonably.

---