As per case facts, the Petitioner, a Non-Resident Indian, was arrested for allegedly smuggling high-value goods like watches through the green channel. Initially, he filed a writ petition seeking home-cooked ... food, and subsequently, sought directions for Customs authorities to initiate settlement proceedings under Section 127 of the Customs Act. An ex-parte order granting this was later recalled. An apparent conflict between Bombay and Delhi High Court judgments regarding the applicability of settlement for goods covered under Section 123 of the Customs Act was brought to the Supreme Court's notice, leading to the present deliberation on this legal ambiguity and the maintainability of the writ petition. The question arose whether settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act is available for seized goods specified under Section 123, and if a non-declaration of goods under Section 77 bars settlement, and whether Article 32 jurisdiction is appropriate for such statutory relief. Finally, one judge opined that when goods are seized within the customs area, the burden of proof provision under Section 123 becomes redundant, making the bar on settlement under Section 127B inapplicable. Entering via the green channel implies a 'nil' declaration, and denying settlement would make the provision defunct. Furthermore, the Court can address such issues under Article 32 to resolve conflicts and ensure justice. The other judge, however, disagreed, stating that Section 127B explicitly bars settlement for Section 123 goods, and such an interpretation would nullify the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution and other provisions of the Customs Act. He also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition for statutory relief under Article 32 without a fundamental rights infringement. Due to this divergence of opinion, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.