2001 (2) TMI 816 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's order.
2. Confirmation of demand of duty in respect of 35 bills of entry.
3. Penalty reduction for directors of the main applicant.
4. Penalty on M/s. Laxmi Narayan Ramniwas.
5. Early hearing of the Rectification of Mistake applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Rectification of Mistakes:
The applicants filed applications under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, pointing out alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's Order and praying for amendments. The applications were directed towards the same order but highlighted different mistakes, necessitating a common order for disposal.

2. Confirmation of Demand of Duty in Respect of 35 Bills of Entry:
The main applicant, M/s. Cosmosteels (P) Ltd., contended that the confirmation of demand of duty for 35 bills of entries was erroneous as the evidence relied upon (bank retired invoices) was only available for 27 bills of entry. The Tribunal, however, found that the confirmation of demand was based on multiple pieces of evidence, including misdeclaration of goods and under-valuation, not solely on bank endorsed invoices. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistakes should address apparent errors on the record and not involve re-evaluation of evidence, thus rejecting the application for rectification.

3. Penalty Reduction for Directors of the Main Applicant:
The directors of M/s. Cosmosteels (P) Ltd., Shri R.S. Jain and Shri A.K. Jain, sought further reduction in penalties originally imposed and subsequently reduced by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected these applications, reiterating that the powers to rectify mistakes do not extend to reviewing decisions already made after due consideration of all facts.

4. Penalty on M/s. Laxmi Narayan Ramniwas:
The Tribunal agreed with the submission that the penalty on M/s. Laxmi Narayan Ramniwas should be set aside as the confiscation of their consignment had already been overturned, and the matter was remanded for re-examination. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on them was set aside, modifying the Tribunal's order accordingly.

5. Early Hearing of the Rectification of Mistake Applications:
The application for early hearing of the Rectification of Mistake applications became infructuous with the disposal of the main applications.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
Dissenting Opinion by Vice-President:
The Vice-President dissented on the point regarding the 8 bills of entry, agreeing that the confirmation of duty demand should only apply to the 27 bills of entry with bank-retired invoices, identifying an error apparent from the record. He directed the rectification of the order to confirm the demand only for these 27 bills.

Final Order by the President:
The President, acting as the Third Member, examined the difference of opinion and concluded that the application for rectification was outside the purview of Section 129B(2), agreeing with the Member (Judicial) that the application was not maintainable. Consequently, the Rectification of Mistake Application was rejected by the majority opinion.

Final Conclusion:
In view of the majority opinion, the Rectification of Mistake Application was rejected, maintaining the original decision regarding the 35 bills of entry and the penalties imposed.