2019 (10) TMI 1330 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - Error apparent on the face of record - Classification of goods - Tug Boat - HELD THAT - The legal position that the Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the rectification application provided only the apparent errors are pointed out; it is quite clear that the allegation as to the errors in the Final Order can only be challenged in a Higher Court, to which this Bench lacks jurisdiction. In the statement of facts filed along with the Appeal Memorandum or even in the grounds-of-appeal, the appellant does not dispute its own classification and only in the synopsis filed does the appellant canvass contrary to its own stand on the classification by alleging that the classification by the Revenue under CTH 8904 was wrong while the proper classification should have been either under CTH 8901 or 8905. There are no disputes as regards raising new grounds or additional grounds at any stage, but the peculiarity of the case is that the Revenue has only acted upon the appellant s submission; the Revenue has gone by the appellant s own classification in the first available document viz., the Bill of Entry, where the classification is categoric and thus, based on such Bill of Entry, show cause notice was issued - even the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction as he has become functus officio. Now when argued differently, that too contrary to the basic document i.e., the Bill of Entry, it is difficult to accept since the argument runs counter to Bill of Entry. The finding/conclusion is arrived at by the Bench on the basis of the grounds and arguments/synopsis; the allegation as to omission to consider the same is devoid of any merits and therefore, misconceived - Impugned order does not suffer from any error, much less an error apparent on the record that can be rectified - Application for rectification of mistake dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake under Customs Act, 1962 read with CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Classification of tug boat under Customs Tariff Heading 8904. Consideration of additional grounds and expert opinion. Jurisdiction of the Bench.

Rectification of Mistake Under Customs Act:
The appellant sought rectification of error in Final Order No. 40046 of 2019 under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 28C of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant argued that the tug boat in question should not fall under Customs Tariff Heading 8904 but be classified as a work boat, a "self-propelled and ocean-going vessel." The appellant also contended that the Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the rectification application.

Classification of Tug Boat:
The appellant relied on expert opinion and previous tribunal orders to support its claim that the tug boat should not be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 8904. The Departmental Representative disputed these arguments, emphasizing that the appellant had classified the work boat under CTH 8904 00 00 in its Bill of Entry. The Revenue contended that the appellant's additional grounds were unnecessary and that the expert opinion submitted voluntarily should not be considered at this stage.

Consideration of Additional Grounds and Expert Opinion:
The appellant raised additional grounds challenging the classification of the boat and exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. However, the Bench found that the appellant did not dispute its own classification in the Bill of Entry initially. The Bench concluded that considering the appellant's own classification and submissions, the Revenue had acted accordingly, and the appellant's plea for reclassification was against the document and beyond the Bench's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the Bench:
The Bench acknowledged its jurisdiction to entertain rectification applications only if apparent errors were pointed out. It clarified that challenges to the Final Order could only be made in a Higher Court. The Bench emphasized that it had given its findings based on the documents on record and dismissed the rectification application, stating that taking a different view under the guise of rectification was impermissible.

Conclusion:
The Final Order No. 40046 of 2019 was upheld, as the Bench found no error that warranted rectification. The application for rectification was deemed misconceived and dismissed. The parties were informed that they could challenge the decision as per the law if aggrieved.