Pre-deposit waiver in customs penalty appeals requires a strong prima facie case and favourable balance of convenience.

Waiver of pre-deposit in a Customs Act penalty appeal was refused because the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case or a favourable balance of convenience. The Tribunal noted that the alleged immunity letter was of doubtful genuineness and did not displace prima facie liability, while the appellant's role in facilitating the illegal import and use of equipment had already been discussed in the impugned order. Pre-deposit of the penalty amount was therefore directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty amount was warranted in the stay application.

Analysis: The application arose from an appeal against a penalty imposed under the Customs Act. The appellant relied on an alleged immunity letter and pleaded financial hardship, but the order records that the role attributed to him in facilitating the illegal import and use of the equipment was discussed in detail in the impugned order. The claimed immunity letter was found to be of doubtful genuineness and, in any event, did not displace the appellant's prima facie liability. On the material before the Tribunal, no strong prima facie case was made out, and the balance of convenience did not justify dispensing with pre-deposit.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was refused and the appellant was directed to deposit the penalty amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Pre-deposit in a customs penalty appeal will not be waived unless the applicant establishes a strong prima facie case and a favourable balance of convenience.

---