2014 (2) TMI 536 - HC - Customs

Petition for review of earlier order dismissing the appeal - Determination of rate of customs duty - Held that - In the case of M/s. Tungbhadra Industries v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 (10) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT , a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had held that there is a distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which should be characterised as vitiated by error apparent and review is not an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected and laying down the connotation of an error apparent on the record. The Supreme Court had held that where without any elaborate arguments whether the court points to the error which stairs one in the face and there would reasonably be two opinion entertained about it a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. If the order of the Tribunal relates to determination of any question having a relation to the duty of customs for the purpose of an assessment, the proper remedy should be by way of an appeal, which is provided in Section 130E of the Customs Act. - case sought to be made out by the petitioner does not calls for any interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. - Decided against the revenue.

Issues:
1. Review of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Maintainability of the review application under Section 130 of the Customs Act.
3. Error apparent on the face of the record for review.
4. Interpretation of the scope of jurisdiction for correcting errors in a High Court.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. A Division Bench had previously dismissed the appeal, stating that the case related to the determination of questions regarding the rate of duty, falling outside the scope of Section 130 of the Customs Act. The Division Bench clarified that the dismissal did not prevent the appellant from seeking further remedies through appropriate channels.

2. The appellant later filed a review application challenging the previous order. The appellant's counsel argued that the dispute was not solely about the rate of duty but also encompassed the excisability and marketability of the imported goods, which could lead to the imposition of additional customs duty. The respondent's counsel contended that the Tribunal's decision focused on whether the goods attracted excise duty and additional customs duty, not just the rate of duty.

3. The High Court considered the maintainability of the review application under the Customs Act. The respondent cited a Supreme Court case to support the High Court's jurisdiction to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that for a review to be permissible, the error must be evident without extensive examination or scrutiny of facts or legal positions. It was emphasized that not every error qualified as an error apparent on the face of the record.

4. The Court delved into the interpretation of the scope of jurisdiction for correcting errors in a High Court. Citing precedents, the Court distinguished between a mere erroneous decision and a decision tainted by an error apparent on the face of the record. It was clarified that review was not meant to reevaluate erroneous decisions but to rectify errors that were glaringly evident without complex analysis. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the review application, stating that the alleged error did not meet the criteria for review under the law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review application as the alleged error did not qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record. The decision highlighted the distinction between reviewable errors and mere erroneous decisions, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction in correcting legal judgments.

← Previous Next →