2015 (10) TMI 98 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Held that - Main contention of the Revenue in the ROM Application is that the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the Ullage Report, which was filed in the application of the additional evidence by the Revenue, was always available on record and was not made part of the relied upon documents in the Show Cause Notice. On perusal of the Final order, we find that the Tribunal categorically recorded the submission of the Revenue that these documents now been sought to be relied were not brought to the notice of the customs and that the importer had cleverly manipulated the documents and avoided verification of the same by the Customs at the time of investigation. The finding of the Tribunal in this context is that the documents required are always collected by the premier investigating agency and if they did not get these documents, then there is an improper investigation and the Tribunal rejected the contentions of the Revenue. - we do not find any mistake apparent on the face of the records in Final Order - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding additional evidence and Ullage Report.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order, claiming that additional evidences such as the Ullage Report were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously disposed of a similar application where the applicant sought rectification in Para 5.2 of the Final Order, but it was clarified that there was no mistake in the order. In the present application, the Revenue argued that the Ullage Report, which was sought to be introduced as additional evidence, was not available during the investigation and was not part of the relied upon documents in the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contentions, stating that if these documents were not available during the investigation, it indicated improper investigation.

The Revenue contended that the Ullage Report and other additional facts were not available with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at the time of investigation. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's argument that the documents were not brought to the notice of the customs and that the importer manipulated the documents was not sufficient to prove improper investigation. The Tribunal emphasized that the premier investigating agency like DRI should have collected all necessary documents and rejected the Revenue's contentions. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the records in the Final Order and disposed of the Revenue's application accordingly.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order concerning the introduction of additional evidence, specifically the Ullage Report. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by the Revenue regarding the availability of these documents during the investigation and adjudication process. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error in its previous order and rejected the Revenue's application for rectification, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigation procedures by the relevant authorities.