Final settlement of customs liability limits writ interference, even where the importer seeks CVD credit reallocation.

Where customs liability has already been finally settled by the Settlement Commission, writ interference is limited and the Court will not reopen the settlement merely because the importer seeks item-wise or head-wise allocation of benefit such as CVD credit. The Commission had fixed the duty payable and directed payment of the balance, and a later claim for CVD credit was rejected. The Court found no reason to interfere with that order, holding that technical reallocation of liability was not necessary in settlement proceedings. The challenge therefore failed and the settlement of customs duty remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere with the order of the Settlement Commission settling customs duty and rejecting the subsequent claim for credit of CVD.

Analysis: The importers had already obtained settlement of their customs liability before the Settlement Commission, which fixed the duty payable and required payment of the balance. A later request for credit of CVD was rejected. In settlement proceedings, item-wise determination of liability or insistence on technical allocation under separate heads is not necessary, and once the customs liability stands settled, the scope for writ interference is limited.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the Settlement Commission's order, and the challenge to the rejection of CVD benefit failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the settlement of customs duty undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where customs liability has been finally settled by the Settlement Commission, the Court will not interfere in writ jurisdiction merely because the assessee seeks item-wise or head-wise reallocation of benefit such as CVD credit.

---