Settlement order finality bars selective challenge to confiscation directions where no statutory illegality is shown.

The Madras High Court held that a writ challenge to a Settlement Commission order would not succeed where the petitioner sought to accept the beneficial parts of the settlement while disputing the confiscation directions. The settlement order was conclusive on the matters stated in it, and writ interference was limited to cases of statutory illegality or jurisdictional error. On the facts, the petitioner had repeatedly imported refurbished hard disks in breach of the applicable hazardous waste and foreign trade regime, and no such legal infirmity in the settlement order was shown. The confiscation of seized goods, including absolute confiscation of refurbished goods and confiscation with redemption fine for other goods, was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Settlement Commission's order of absolute confiscation of seized goods and the refusal to disturb the settlement order was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The petitioner had opted to settle the dispute before the Settlement Commission after the investigation and seizure of imported goods allegedly cleared by wrongly availing exemption benefit and dealing in refurbished hard disks contrary to the applicable hazardous waste and foreign trade regime. The settlement order granted substantial relief on duty and interest, but ordered absolute confiscation of the seized refurbished goods and confiscation with redemption fine for other seized goods. The Court noted that an order of settlement is conclusive as to matters stated therein and that interference in writ jurisdiction is confined to cases where the order is contrary to the statute. The petitioner could not selectively accept the favourable parts of the settlement order and challenge only the adverse parts. The facts also showed repeated violations and continued imports despite earlier enforcement action, and no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned settlement order was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The challenge was rejected and the confiscation order was left undisturbed, against the petitioner.

---