Limited writ review of Settlement Commission findings upheld; excess deposit refundable after adjustment of settled customs duty

Writ interference with a Settlement Commission order is limited to cases of statutory contravention causing prejudice, and factual findings are not reappraised unless perverse or unlawful. The Commission's finding that the imported vehicle was a new car, based on the invoice and registration material, was treated as a factual determination and the exemption notification was applied. No illegality or perversity was shown, so the settlement was upheld. Once the settled customs duty and interest were sustained, the amount deposited in excess of that liability was required to be adjusted and the balance refunded to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Settlement Commission's order settling the customs duty and accepting the imported vehicle as a new car was liable to interference in writ jurisdiction; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to refund of the amount lying in deposit after appropriation of the settled duty and interest.

Issue (i): whether the Settlement Commission's order settling the customs duty and accepting the imported vehicle as a new car was liable to interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The scope of interference with an order of the Settlement Commission is confined to examining whether it is contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act and whether such contravention has caused prejudice. Findings on facts are not open to reappraisal in writ proceedings. The question whether the imported car was new or second-hand was treated as a pure question of fact. The Settlement Commission examined the materials, including the invoice and registration aspect, and recorded a factual finding that the car was new and that the exemption notification applied. No perversity, illegality, or statutory contravention was shown.

Conclusion: The Settlement Commission's order was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee was entitled to refund of the amount lying in deposit after appropriation of the settled duty and interest.

Analysis: Once the settlement order was sustained, the amount already deposited in excess of the settled liability was required to be adjusted and the balance, if any, refunded to the assessee. The rejection of the Revenue's challenge necessarily supported implementation of the settlement terms in favour of the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the excess amount after adjustment of the settled dues.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Settlement Commission's order failed, and the settlement was left undisturbed, with consequential refund relief granted to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of the Settlement Commission can be interfered with only if it is contrary to the governing statute, and its factual findings are not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction unless they are perverse or unlawful.

---