Compounding fee determination under Customs law upheld, with writ interference refused and additional time granted for compliance.

Challenge to a compounding order under the Customs Act and the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules was rejected in writ jurisdiction because no infirmity, arbitrariness, or illegality in the fee determination was shown. The High Court held that interference under Article 226 was unwarranted where the compounding authority had fixed the amount under the Rules and the petitioners failed to fault that determination. The Court also allowed an additional thirty days to deposit the compounding fee and furnish proof of payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting compounding of the offence on payment of the amounts determined under the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 called for interference in writ jurisdiction, and whether any further time ought to be granted for deposit of the compounding fee.

Analysis: The challenge was to the compounding order passed under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the amount fixed under Rule 5(5) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005. The Court found no infirmity in the order, noted that the petitioners could not demonstrate any ground to fault the determination, and observed that the amounts fixed were only a small fraction of the currency involved. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no interference was warranted. The Court also granted an additional period of thirty days to make payment and furnish proof of deposit in terms of Rule 4(5) of the Customs (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005.

Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the writ petition was not entertained on merits for interference, while further time for compliance was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference under Article 226 is not warranted where the compounding authority's order under the Customs Act and the Compounding Rules discloses no infirmity and the determination of compounding fee is not shown to be arbitrary or illegal.

---