https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86763 The HC upheld the rejection of petitioner's application for compounding an offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court determined that compounding applications require scrutiny and the compounding officer's subjective satisfaction that the disclosure was full and true. In this case, substantial variance existed between petitioner's statements under Section 108 and in the Panchnama compared to the compounding application, without any retraction of earlier statements. The court emphasized that compounding is not a routine entitlement and dismissed the petition, finding the rejection justified due to petitioner's failure to make full and true disclosure of facts as required by applicable circulars. en-us Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:05:58 +0530 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:05:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86763 The HC upheld the rejection of petitioner's application for compounding an offense under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court determined that compounding applications require scrutiny and the compounding officer's subjective satisfaction that the disclosure was full and true. In this case, substantial variance existed between petitioner's statements under Section 108 and in the Panchnama compared to the compounding application, without any retraction of earlier statements. The court emphasized that compounding is not a routine entitlement and dismissed the petition, finding the rejection justified due to petitioner's failure to make full and true disclosure of facts as required by applicable circulars. Highlights Customs Sat, 22 Mar 2025 09:05:58 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86763