In Brief
A non-resident Indian arrested at Delhi airport for attempting to smuggle high-value watches through the green channel sought relief under the Customs Act's Settlement Commission scheme to settle his duty liability. The central dispute was whether goods specified under Section 123 (which reverses burden of proof) are barred from settlement under Section 127B. The two-judge bench diverged: Justice Krishna Murari held that Section 123's burden-reversal becomes redundant for goods seized within customs area (where guilt is manifest), so settlement is available. Justice Sanjay Karol held that the statutory bar in Section 127B's proviso applies regardless of seizure location. The bench reflected conflicting High Court authorities without resolving the conflict authoritatively.</summary_100>
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.