https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286467 The Settlement Commission, Mumbai, found that applications for settlement by M/s. Aditya International Trade Co. and its proprietor were not maintainable under Section 127L of the Customs Act due to a penalty imposed on the proprietor in a previous case. Despite arguments regarding his role as a de facto owner, the Commission held that the penalty for undervaluation in the previous case rendered him ineligible for settlement in the present case. The confessional statement recorded by DRI was considered admissible, and the applications were rejected, affirming the legal provisions and Bench findings. en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Feb 2020 20:29:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286467 The Settlement Commission, Mumbai, found that applications for settlement by M/s. Aditya International Trade Co. and its proprietor were not maintainable under Section 127L of the Customs Act due to a penalty imposed on the proprietor in a previous case. Despite arguments regarding his role as a de facto owner, the Commission held that the penalty for undervaluation in the previous case rendered him ineligible for settlement in the present case. The confessional statement recorded by DRI was considered admissible, and the applications were rejected, affirming the legal provisions and Bench findings. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 07 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286467