https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759562 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. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Oct 2024 08:19:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759562 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 27 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759562