Settlement Commission grants immunity, but petitioner must pay interest on duty foregone.

The court upheld the Settlement Commission's decision to grant immunity from penalty but directed the petitioner to pay simple interest at 10% on the duty foregone under the Customs Act, 1962. The Commission's exercise of discretion in granting partial waiver of interest was deemed valid, emphasizing the finality of its order and warning of consequences for non-compliance. Despite relying on court decisions, the petitioner was required to pay the interest within a specified period, as interest payable under a bond executed by the importer was held to be mandatory and not subject to waiver by the Settlement Commission.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 regarding levy of interest and penalty.
2. Immunity from penalty and waiver of interest under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Discretion of Settlement Commission in granting partial waiver of interest.
4. Applicability of court decisions on interest liability.
5. Finality of Settlement Commission's order and consequences of non-compliance.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported goods under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme and was issued Advance Licenses in 1993 to import goods duty-free. The petitioner failed to fulfill the export obligation, leading to a show cause notice for payment of duty amounting to Rs. 48,18,110/-, later re-quantified to Rs. 39,25,511/- by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent Settlement Commission under the Customs Act, 1962, admitting liability and seeking immunity from penalty and waiver of interest. The Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalty but directed the petitioner to pay simple interest at 10% on the duty foregone, which the petitioner contested through a writ petition.
3. The Settlement Commission's decision to grant partial waiver of interest was upheld, citing its discretion and the statutory framework in place at that time. The Commission's exercise of discretion was found to be valid, considering the relevant provisions and notifications under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. The petitioner relied on various court decisions to argue against the interest liability, but the court found that the issue had already been addressed by the Supreme Court in a previous case, where it was held that interest payable under a bond executed by the importer was mandatory and could not be waived by the Settlement Commission.
5. The court emphasized the finality of the Settlement Commission's order under the Customs Act, 1962, and warned the petitioner of consequences for non-compliance. The petitioner was directed to pay the interest within a specified period, failing which the authorities could proceed as if no immunity had been granted, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

---