2008 (9) TMI 316 - AT - Customs

ROM Rectification of mistake no mistake exist when it is found only an expression of doubt by the appellant as to whether the chemical laboratory at Tuticorin Customs House was equipped enough to test samples of paraffin wax. no mistake exist when confiscation upheld on the ground of misdeclaration that the Chemical Examiner held the goods to be fully refined paraffin wax , that his report was not contested, that the Bill of Entry carried the description semi-refined paraffin wax ROM is not allowed on the basis of these two grounds however ROM allowed partly on the basis that prayer was made for provisional release of goods but no direction was issued in that respect held to modify the order with the direction that if the party is willing to furnish such security as may be required by the adjudicating authority, they should be permitted to clear the goods provisionally pending de nova adjudication of the case

Summary

Issues: Rectification of apparent mistakes in Final Order, Classification of goods affecting duty, Contemporaneous imports from Egypt, Provisional release of goods.

Analysis:
1. Rectification of Apparent Mistakes: The applicant sought rectification of what they considered to be 'apparent mistakes' in Final Order Nos. 812 & 813/2008. The main contention was the acceptance of the Chemical Examiner's report, which the appellant claimed was not contested. However, upon review, it was found that there was only doubt expressed by the appellant regarding the testing facility at Tuticorin Customs House, without a categorical objection to the report. The Tribunal concluded that the 'mistake' pointed out by the appellant did not exist, as there was no substantial evidence of contesting the report.

2. Classification of Goods and Duty: The appellant argued that the classification of goods did not impact the duty levied, thus challenging the conditional direction for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the Chemical Examiner's report identified the goods as "fully refined paraffin wax," while the Bill of Entry described them as "semi-refined paraffin wax," indicating misdeclaration by the importer. This misdeclaration led to the goods being held liable for confiscation. The Tribunal upheld these findings and disagreed with the appellant's claim that misdeclaration would affect the valuation during de novo adjudication.

3. Contemporaneous Imports from Egypt: The appellant contended that no instances of contemporaneous imports of identical goods from Egypt were cited, contrary to the final order's finding. After considering this argument, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant and deleted the sentence from the final order, acknowledging the lack of evidence regarding imports from Egypt at lower prices.

4. Provisional Release of Goods: Another issue raised was the absence of a direction for provisional release of the goods in the final order, despite a prayer for this relief by the appellant's counsel. The Tribunal recognized the technical aspects related to the goods' storage conditions but emphasized the Customs Act's provisions for provisional release against adequate security. Consequently, the Tribunal inserted a new paragraph directing the adjudicating authority to consider the appellant's plea for provisional release, subject to furnishing required security. The application was allowed to the extent specified, amending the final order accordingly.