9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the addendum order dated 23-9-1983 passed by the Adjudicating Authority can be considered within the scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 The primary issue for determination was whether the addendum order dated 23-9-1983, which amended the original adjudication order dated 30-10-1982, falls within the scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Relevant Facts: - On 12-6-1981, the Customs Authorities seized goods of foreign origin from the respondent's house, valued at Rs. 1,31,587.50. - The respondent could not produce any valid documentation proving lawful possession of these goods. - Show cause notices were issued on 13-11-1981 to eight individuals, including the respondent, under Sections 111(d) and 111(p) of the Customs Act, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. - The original adjudication order dated 30-10-1982 confiscated the goods and imposed penalties on seven individuals but did not mention the respondent. - The addendum order dated 23-9-1983 included the respondent, imposing a penalty of Rs. 7,500, citing an accidental slip and omission in the original order. Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the addendum was a legitimate correction under Section 154 of the Customs Act, which allows for rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. - The respondent contended that the omission in the original order was not a mere clerical error but a substantial defect, thus falling outside the purview of Section 154. Court's Analysis: - Section 154 of the Customs Act permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions at any time. - The court drew parallels with Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has a similar provision for correcting clerical errors or accidental slips. - The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Samarendra Nath Sinha v. Krishna Kumar Nag, which established that courts have inherent power to correct clerical mistakes to reflect the true intention of the judgment. Findings: - The court found that the omission to mention the respondent in the original order was an accidental slip, as the respondent's involvement was evident from the records and the show cause notice. - The court noted that the original order did not exonerate the respondent, and the omission was not a conscious decision but an oversight. - The court held that the addendum order rectified this oversight and was within the scope of Section 154. Conclusion: - The court concluded that the addendum order dated 23-9-1983 was valid and within the scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. - The Tribunal's view that the omission was a substantial defect and not a clerical error was found to be incorrect. - The court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding the need for further opportunity to show cause and the timing of the rectification order. Final Judgment: - The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative. - The addendum order dated 23-9-1983 was held to be within the scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. - No costs were awarded.
|
