Customs settlement threshold must be met independently for each proceeding; separate commissionerate notices cannot be clubbed to qualify.

A common settlement application under the Customs settlement scheme was held not maintainable where it sought to combine three separate show cause notices issued by different commissionerates, because each proceeding had to satisfy the statutory duty threshold independently and distinct adjudications could not be clubbed to meet it. The settlement mechanism was treated as a strict exception to ordinary customs adjudication, and the statutory definition of "case" was read as a pending proceeding before one adjudicating authority. The absence of an oral hearing did not vitiate the order, as the applicant had filed a written reply, did not request personal hearing, and showed no prejudice from the omission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a common settlement application was maintainable in respect of three show cause notices issued by different commissionerates when the additional duty accepted in each notice was below the statutory threshold; (ii) Whether failure to grant an oral hearing before the Settlement Commission vitiated the order for breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether a common settlement application was maintainable in respect of three show cause notices issued by different commissionerates when the additional duty accepted in each notice was below the statutory threshold.

Analysis: The settlement mechanism under Chapter XIVA was treated as an exception to the normal customs adjudication process and therefore required strict compliance with the statutory pre-conditions. The definition of "case" in Section 127-A(b) was read as a proceeding pending before an adjudicating authority, and not as a basis for clubbing distinct proceedings before different commissionerates. Since each show cause notice related to a separate proceeding before a separate adjudicating authority and each individual amount was below the prescribed limit, the statutory requirement that the additional amount of duty accepted in the application must exceed three lakh rupees was not satisfied. The attempt to invoke clubbing principles from criminal procedure was held to be inapplicable.

Conclusion: The common settlement application was not maintainable and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to grant an oral hearing before the Settlement Commission vitiated the order for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The record showed that the applicant had filed a written reply and did not seek a personal hearing. The dispute turned on interpretation of the statutory scheme and no prejudice was shown from the absence of oral hearing. On that basis, the requirement of natural justice was held not to have been violated.

Conclusion: There was no breach of natural justice and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory conditions for settlement were not met, and the refusal to entertain the application and the dismissal of the writ petition were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement application under Section 127-B of the Customs Act must satisfy the statutory threshold independently for the relevant proceeding, and distinct proceedings before different adjudicating authorities cannot be clubbed to meet that requirement; absence of a requested personal hearing does not invalidate the order where no prejudice is shown.

---