Preponderance of probability in settlement can sustain clandestine removal findings and support limited immunity for ancillary liabilities.

Settlement proceedings may clandestine removals on a preponderance of probability where duplicate and torn invoices, false consignee details, unretracted admissions, and missing production records collectively support evasion. The duty liability was settled at the amount demanded in the show cause notice. Even though full and true disclosure was not established, the settlement framework was used to grant limited statutory relief: immunity from fine and prosecution, a reduced penalty, and restricted interest relief subject to payment of the balance duty and interest within the prescribed time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clandestine clearances were established on the basis of the material on record and whether the duty liability could be settled at the amount demanded in the notice; (ii) whether immunity and partial reliefs could be granted in settlement in respect of fine, penalty, interest and prosecution.

Issue (i): Whether clandestine clearances were established on the basis of the material on record and whether the duty liability could be settled at the amount demanded in the notice.

Analysis: The material included duplicate and torn invoices, non-existent consignee details, unretracted statements admitting preparation and use of duplicate invoices, and the absence of proper production and clearance records. The applicant's computer-based version of lower clandestine removals was found inconsistent with the manner in which duplicate invoices had been destroyed after use. On the totality of circumstances, the Commission applied the test of preponderance of probability and accepted that the goods had been cleared through 172 duplicate invoices as alleged.

Conclusion: The duty liability was held to be the amount demanded in the show cause notice and the case was settled on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether immunity and partial reliefs could be granted in settlement in respect of fine, penalty, interest and prosecution.

Analysis: The applicant was found not to have made full and true disclosure, but cooperation in the settlement proceedings was taken into account. The Commission exercised its settlement power to grant immunity from fine and prosecution, to restrict penalty to a reduced amount, and to limit interest relief only up to a specified rate, while directing payment of the balance duty and interest within the stipulated time. The reliefs were granted under the statutory settlement framework.

Conclusion: Partial immunity was granted, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 50,000, immunity from prosecution was allowed, and interest was limited as directed.

Final Conclusion: The settlement was allowed with confirmation of the principal duty demand, while granting limited statutory immunity and partial relief on ancillary liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: In settlement proceedings, clandestine removals may be accepted on a preponderance of probability, and the Commission may grant immunity or partial relief under the statutory settlement provisions even where disclosure is not fully true, subject to payment of the determined duty and conditions imposed by law.

---