2007 (5) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-consideration of case law in the final order.
2. Request for the final order to be recalled and the case to be disposed of afresh.
3. Argument regarding the error apparent on the face of the record.
4. Dismissal of the application.

Analysis:

1. Non-consideration of Case Law:
The appellants filed an application stating an apparent error in the final order passed by the Bench in their appeal. They argued that the decision in a specific case, Gauri Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs, Pune, was not taken into account in the final order. The party contended that the imported diesel engines should not have been absolutely confiscated as they were consumer goods, and the goods should have been released upon payment of redemption fine. The party also referenced another decision, Care International v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras, which was followed in the Gauri Enterprises case. However, the respondent opposed the recall of the final order, stating that the case law presented by the party was not part of the record when the final order was issued.

2. Request for Recalling the Final Order:
The appellants requested the final order to be recalled and the case to be disposed of afresh after considering the case law they presented. They argued that the decisions in Gauri Enterprises and Care International were crucial and should have been taken into account during the initial decision-making process. The appellants contended that the failure to consider these cases constituted an error that warranted the recall of the final order.

3. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
Upon careful consideration, the Bench noted that the case law cited by the appellants was not part of the record when the final order was passed. The Bench acknowledged that the decision in Care International was known to the appellants when they filed the appeal, but it was not relied upon in the appeal memo. The decision of the Bangalore Bench, which was cited by the appellants, was rendered after the appeal was filed and was not brought to the notice of the Bench during the final order issuance. Consequently, the Bench concluded that the non-consideration of these case laws did not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The final order was deemed to reflect the Bench's decision on merits, which was appealable through the appropriate appellate court.

4. Dismissal of the Application:
Ultimately, the Bench dismissed the application, emphasizing that the final order reflected their decision on merits and was subject to appeal through the proper appellate channels. The Bench clarified that the remedy against the final order was not an application for recall but an appeal to the competent appellate court. Therefore, the application for recalling the final order was rejected, and the case was concluded with the dismissal of the application.