2003 (10) TMI 492 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Rectification of apparent mistakes in the Final Order regarding the direction for redemption of goods on payment of fine, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rectify such mistakes under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. Rectification of Apparent Mistakes: The Consultant for one of the appellants submitted an application pointing out alleged mistakes in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The contention was that directing goods to be redeemed on payment of fine, despite the appellant's entitlement to a specific notification and exemption from penalty under the Customs Act, was erroneous. The Consultant argued that the order should have set aside confiscation unconditionally to allow for the release of the vehicle. However, the Tribunal, after examining the submissions, held that the order for redemption was made with conviction and was a result of a comprehensive consideration of facts, evidence, and relevant legal provisions. It was emphasized that any error of judgment could only be rectified by the appellate court, not by the Tribunal under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: The Tribunal, after careful perusal of the Final Order, found that the direction for redemption against payment of fine was not a mistake that could be rectified under Section 129B(2). It was clarified that the Tribunal's decision to allow redemption with a fine was a well-considered judgment based on relevant considerations. The Tribunal highlighted that the limited remand for determining the fine was a result of a thorough analysis of the case's facts, evidence, and legal provisions. The Tribunal rejected the application, emphasizing that the appellant's dissatisfaction with the judgment's outcome did not constitute a rectifiable error under the Customs Act, and any challenge to the judgment should have been pursued through the appellate remedy.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of apparent mistakes in the Final Order, maintaining that the direction for redemption of goods on payment of fine was a deliberate decision based on a comprehensive assessment of the case. The Tribunal clarified the distinction between errors of judgment and rectifiable mistakes under the Customs Act, affirming that the appellate court was the appropriate forum for challenging the judgment's outcome.