Certificate of origin and undisclosed trade opinion were insufficient to justify pre-deposit recovery; unconditional stay followed.

A certificate of origin showing Nepalese origin, coupled with the absence of substantive rebuttal to the adverse material relied on by the adjudicating authority, supported a prima facie case on pre-deposit and penalty recovery. The Inspector's report and trade opinion were not treated as sufficient at this stage, especially since the contents of the trade opinion were not disclosed in the impugned order. Unconditional stay was therefore granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether pre-deposit and recovery of the penalty should be stayed in view of the certificate of origin produced by the appellant and the material relied upon by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The certificate of origin indicated Nepalese origin of the goods, while the adverse material referred to by the adjudicating authority was not shown to have been rebutted with any substantive material. The reliance placed on the Inspector's report and the trade opinion was not considered sufficient at this stage, particularly when the details of the trade opinion were not disclosed in the impugned order.

Outcome: A prima facie case in favour of the appellant was found and the stay petition was allowed unconditionally.

---