2014 (10) TMI 856 - HC - Customs

Import of baggage - Gold ornaments versus pure gold ornaments - According to the appellants, the words gold ornaments ought to have been interpreted as gold ornaments with 22 carat purity and not as gold ornaments with 24 carat. - Review petition against the order 2014 (12) TMI 268 - KERALA HIGH COURT - Held that - We do not find any satisfactory reason which calls for a review of the judgment. We are unable to find any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reasons or circumstances, which warrants a review of the judgment. - It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be ground for review - Decided against the petitioner / revenue.

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of term 'gold ornaments' and review of judgment

Interpretation of term 'gold ornaments':
The appellants contended that the term 'gold ornaments' should be understood as 'gold ornaments with 22 carat purity' and not as gold ornaments with 24 carat purity. The learned Standing Counsel argued that since the term 'gold' is not defined under the Customs Act, it should be interpreted to mean 'gold ornaments made of gold with 22 carat purity'. However, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Review Petition, stating that the judgment was rendered after considering all contentions on merits, and there was no ground for a review of the judgment. The court examined the contentions raised and found that the judgments cited by the appellants were not applicable to the present case. The court concluded that the attempt to seek a review was, in essence, a request for a rehearing of the appeal, which was not the appropriate remedy if the petitioner believed the judgment was incorrect.

Review of judgment:
The court emphasized that a review could only be granted under specific conditions as prescribed under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. These conditions include the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The court found no satisfactory reason justifying a review of the judgment. It reiterated the principle that even an erroneous decision cannot be the basis for a review, citing relevant case laws. The court further noted that the contentions raised by the review petitioners did not assist them in seeking a review of the judgment. Consequently, the court dismissed the Review Petition, stating that it was misconceived and ordered no costs to be imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Kerala High Court highlights the issues of interpreting the term 'gold ornaments' and the review petition filed by the appellants, along with the court's reasoning and conclusion regarding the same.