https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408475 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. en-us Thu, 27 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408475 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. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 27 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408475