2018 (10) TMI 1789 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - case of applicant is that the appeal filed by them had been dismissed ex parte without considering the grounds of appeal or recording the same - HELD THAT - In examining the evidences as well as the background, the role of each of the appellant has been scrutinised. A considerable portion of the order is a recitation of the record of proceedings of the hearing which were conducted over several days - As the applicant was not represented it is but natural that the record of proceedings would not relate to the role of the appellant or their submissions. The appellant was imposed with a penalty of ₹ 75,00,000/- under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 for the established role in the import effected by M/s. Hindustan Engineering Corporation. It cannot be said that the grounds of appeal were not considered - absence of certain details on the cover sheet attached to the order does not, in any way, affect the disposal of the appeal. That is the matter on which the registry is concerned and not the bench. There are no merits in the application for rectification of mistake - application rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of mistake alleged in the Final Order regarding dismissal of appeal without considering grounds, lack of independent finding, and clarity on disposal of the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application seeking rectification of a mistake alleged in the Final Order dated 14th December 2017, which disposed of various appeals against an Order-in-Original dated 30th November 2007 of the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal of the present applicant in Appeal No. C/359/2008 was a subject of concern as it was dismissed ex parte without considering the grounds of appeal or recording the same. The applicant contended that the order did not clearly indicate whether their appeal had been disposed of or not, and raised issues regarding lack of independent findings in the order.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the body of the order clearly identified the applicant as an appellant. The order extensively reviewed the evidences and background, scrutinizing the role of each appellant, even though the appellant was not represented during the proceedings. The applicant was penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, for their involvement in an import transaction. The Tribunal noted that the grounds of appeal were indeed considered, and the lack of representation during the proceedings naturally led to a limited mention of the appellant's role and submissions.

The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of certain details on the cover sheet attached to the order did not impact the appeal's disposal, as it was a concern for the registry, not the bench. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the application for rectification of mistake and rejected the same. The judgment highlights the importance of due process in considering appeals and the significance of proper representation in legal proceedings to ensure a fair review of the case.

This analysis underscores the Tribunal's thorough review of the appeal, addressing the concerns raised by the applicant regarding the dismissal and lack of clarity in the Final Order. The judgment reaffirms the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in adjudicating legal matters, emphasizing the need for proper representation and consideration of grounds of appeal in reaching a just decision.