9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Rectification of mistake in the Order dated 19-5-2006 passed by the Tribunal regarding confiscation and penalty imposed on Customs House Agent and importer.
Rectification of Mistake - Customs House Agent's Appeal: The present application for rectification of mistake was filed by the Commissioner regarding the Order dated 19-5-2006 passed by the Tribunal. The appellants, Customs House Agents, had filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 22-9-2005. During the hearing on 19-5-2006, the Bench allowed the Stay Petition, set aside the order of confiscation, and waived the penalty imposed on the Customs House Agents. However, the Customs House Agents had not prayed for setting aside the confiscation, but only against the penalty. The Bench's decision to set aside the confiscation exceeded the appellants' prayer, causing prejudice to the Department's case regarding the importer's appeal on the same matter. Rectification of Mistake - Importer's Appeal: Another appeal was filed by M/s. Zodiac Trading Company against the same impugned Order dated 22-9-2005, where they were aggrieved by the confiscation of goods and the penalty imposed. The Bench, while hearing the Stay Petition of M/s. Zodiac Trading Company, required them to pre-deposit a substantial amount against Anti-Dumping Duty, Special Additional Duty, and penalty. The Commissioner rightly contended that the Bench should not have decided on the issue of confiscation in the Customs House Agent's appeal, as it was the subject matter of the importer's appeal. The decision to set aside the confiscation and decide the Customs House Agent's appeal simultaneously with the importer's appeal was deemed a mistake, causing serious prejudice to the Department's case. Final Decision: In light of the above findings, the Final Order setting aside the confiscation in the Customs House Agent's appeal was recalled, and both the Customs House Agent's appeal and M/s. Zodiac Trading Company's appeal were directed to be listed together for a joint hearing. The waiver of pre-deposit granted earlier was to continue in the meantime. This decision aimed to rectify the mistake made during the previous hearing and ensure a fair and coherent resolution of both appeals against the same impugned order. Judgement Pronounced: 28-5-2007.
|
