1987 (1) TMI 495 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for recall of order dated 12-8-1986 and grant of a fresh hearing.
2. Interpretation of the power to amend an order under S.129-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Dispute regarding refund claim on account of valuation.
4. Allegation of error in the order of the Appellate Collector.
5. Application for rectification under S.129-B(2) of the Act.
6. Scope and distinction between rectification, review, and restitution.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal dismissed an application seeking a recall of the order dated 12-8-1986, emphasizing that once an order is pronounced or communicated, it cannot be recalled but may be amended to rectify any apparent mistake under S.129-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The application, although not explicitly for amendment, was treated as such by the Tribunal. The facts of the case involved a dispute over a refund claim for customs duty on "white coconut oil," with the Appellate Collector rejecting the claim on grounds of limitation and non-pressing of the valuation issue.

3. The applicant contended that the valuation claim was consistently urged, citing discrepancies in the Appellate Collector's observations. However, the Tribunal found no error apparent from the record and dismissed the application, noting that the claim not being pressed before the Collector was not adequately challenged during the proceedings.

4. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Collector's observation was in relation to another appeal, emphasizing the need for a clear demonstration of error apparent from the record for rectification under S.129-B(2) of the Act.

5. The Tribunal discussed the principles of rectification, review, and restitution, highlighting that rectification is limited to correcting obvious mistakes on the record and cannot be used for a reevaluation of the order based on new evidence or arguments.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the application was misconceived and dismissed it, emphasizing that the impression left on the counsel during the hearing does not dictate the final decision, which is based on a thorough deliberation of the facts and legal principles involved.