Prima facie case for stay succeeds where hearsay evidence and seized articles do not directly link the appellant to smuggling.

A prima facie case for dispensation of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a penalty matter was established where the statement relied on was hearsay and did not directly implicate the appellant. Articles recovered from the appellant's residence, including VCP manuals, connecting cords and a driver's pass-book, were held insufficient by themselves to conclusively link him to the alleged smuggling. On that basis, the appellant was found to have shown adequate grounds for interim relief against pre-deposit and recovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for dispensation of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a penalty matter arising from alleged smuggling.

Analysis: The statement relied upon against the appellant was found to be hearsay, as it did not directly implicate him and only reproduced what had allegedly been heard from another person. The articles recovered from the appellant's residence were held insufficient to conclusively connect him with the seized goods, since the presence of VCP manuals, connecting cords, and the driver's pass-book did not by themselves establish involvement in smuggling.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have established a good prima facie case warranting dispensation of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.

---