https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788788 Settlement of the underlying import dispute was treated as final for the matters covered, and that finality barred continued confiscation-related proceedings against the co-noticee. Because the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act depended on goods alleged to be liable to confiscation under Section 111, once the import-related matter had been settled the foundation for the penalty disappeared. The settlement order also operated as a bar against reopening the same issue in later proceedings. On that basis, the penalty could not be sustained and consequential relief followed. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788788 Settlement of the underlying import dispute was treated as final for the matters covered, and that finality barred continued confiscation-related proceedings against the co-noticee. Because the penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act depended on goods alleged to be liable to confiscation under Section 111, once the import-related matter had been settled the foundation for the penalty disappeared. The settlement order also operated as a bar against reopening the same issue in later proceedings. On that basis, the penalty could not be sustained and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788788