Section 127. Award of confiscation or penalty by customs officers not to interfere with other punishments

Judgments on Section 127

• Union Of India (Uoi) Through The… vs Hoganas India Ltd. And Ors. [Alongwith… — Bombay High Court, 21 Jul 2005. The Settlement Commission under Chapter XIV-A has a very wide jurisdiction to entertain all kinds of settlement applications under Section 127B — including cases involving fraud or mis-declaration — provided the…
• Anil Kapoor vs Niranjan Subudhi — Delhi High Court, 28 Jun 2025. The Settlement Commission constituted under the Customs Act, 1962 can grant immunity only from prosecution and penalty under the Customs Act in cases involving the levy, assessment and collection of customs duty, and…
• M/S.asianet Satellite Communication Limited, Now Represented By Its Senior Vice President vs The Customs And Central Excise — Madras High Court, 19 Feb 2025. Where an EPCG licence period stands extended and export realisations for the extended period are supported by documentary evidence such as bank certificates, the Settlement/adjudicating authority must consider them and…
• M/S.Alba Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs… — Madras High Court, 31 Jul 2024. Since the bar on successive settlement applications under Section 127L(2) was deleted by the Finance Act, 2010, an adjudication order passed without a noticee's participation while settlement under Chapter XIV-A is…
• Yamal Manojbhai vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 4 May 2023. Watches being goods to which Section 123 applies, the proviso to Section 127B bars recourse to the Settlement Commission for cases involving their illicit importation, though here the Bench's divergence of opinion led…
• Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat vs Additional Commissioner Of Customs… — Calcutta High Court, 21 Sep 2017. Where a revenue statute like the Customs Act constitutes a complete code and provides an efficacious special remedy such as the Section 128 appeal, the writ court will not normally entertain an Article 226 petition…
• Commissioner Of Central Excise And Customs, Cochin Who Is The Third vs M/S.asianet Satellite Communications Limited — Madras High Court, 23 Feb 2011. A Settlement Commission's order passed on a full and true disclosure can be set aside only if it is contrary to the provisions of the Act and that contravention has prejudiced the party, since judicial review examines…
• M/S Kundan Rice Mills Limited Panipat vs K.S. Jagannathan & — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 5 Aug 2008. Even where a power exists, its exercise must be fair, reasonable and proportionate: absent even a prima facie finding that goods are liable to confiscation, conditions of provisional release securing the full value of…
• V.C.Mohan vs The Commissioner Of Customs (Air) — Madras High Court, 23 Oct 2007. Even cases involving alleged fraud, smuggling or deliberate mis-declaration can be settled under Section 127-B of the Customs Act, provided the statutory conditions — including issue of a show cause notice — are…
• Alpesh Navinchandra Shah vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors — Supreme Court of India, 26 Feb 2007. The purpose of passing a detention order is to prevent the detenu from continuing his prejudicial activity but not to punish him, so where the case has been fully settled before the Settlement Commission with duty paid…
• Tata Teleservices (Maharashtra) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Bombay High Court, 21 Jul 2005. The Settlement Commission under Chapter XIV-A can entertain all kinds of settlement applications — including those involving fraud or mis-declaration — provided the mandatory conditions of Section 127B(1) are met (bill…
• Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) Thro' Secretary — Gujarat High Court, 13 Jan 2004
• Pratibha Syntext Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Bombay High Court, 28 Jul 2003. Where an importer breaches both the advance licence and the duty-exemption notification, the executed bond making him liable to pay duty with interest empowers the Settlement Commission to order recovery of duty with…
• Hi-Tech Engineers vs Union Of India (Uoi) — Bombay High Court, 28 Jul 2003. Where duty-free clearance of warehoused goods under Section 90 is obtained by misdeclaration, the clearance becomes an improper removal and, once the assessment is set aside and duty is found payable, Section 72 read…
• M/S. Millions Fashion vs The Customs — Madras High Court, 19 Feb 2020. A settlement applicant under Section 127B must maintain a clear and consistent stand on its admitted liability, and where the Settlement Commission rejects an application solely because of an unexplained change of…
• Subhash Popatlal Dave vs Union Of India & Anr — Supreme Court of India, 16 Jul 2013. A COFEPOSA detention order can be challenged at the pre-execution stage only on the five limited Alka Subhash Gadia grounds (wrong statute, wrong person, wrong purpose, vague/extraneous/irrelevant grounds, or…