2018 (7) TMI 866 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - The applicant contends that though they had drawn attention to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd 2015 (6) TMI 732 - SUPREME COURT which comes to their rescue, the Tribunal had erroneously recorded that the adjudicating authority was required to follow the ratio in Jindal Industries v. Union of India 2002 (5) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI - Held that - It is seen that the directions are amply clear and the Tribunal has instructed that the ratio in re Jindal Industries, cited by Learned Authorized Representative, should be followed. We do not consider this to be an erroneous recording of submission but find this to be a deliberated direction to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal may have erred in its judgement but it does not appear to have erred in the recording as claimed by Learned Counsel for applicant. Error of judgement, even if that were so, is not rectifiable by recall or rectification but only by appeal. In any case, there is no detriment to applicant as the matter has been directed to be decided afresh. The adjudicating authority is bound to follow judicial precedent and a decision, if in their favor, can certainly be cited in the fresh proceedings which can be ignored by the original authority only at his peril. Application is rejected as not warranting rectification.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in final order regarding imposition of anti-dumping duty.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake in the final order dated 18th September 2017, concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with specific directions to ascertain facts and notify the appellant before deciding the matter afresh.

2. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erroneously referred to a different case law, Jindal Industries v. Union of India, instead of the relevant case law, Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd. The Tribunal clarified that the directions given were deliberate, instructing the adjudicating authority to follow the Jindal Industries case law. The Tribunal stated that an error of judgment, if any, is not rectifiable by recall or rectification but only by appeal.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no prejudice to the appellant as the matter was directed to be decided afresh. The adjudicating authority is obligated to follow judicial precedent, and any decision in favor of the appellant can be cited in the fresh proceedings, which the original authority must consider seriously.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, stating that the recording of the submission was not erroneous, and any alleged error in judgment could only be addressed through an appeal. The decision was pronounced in court on 20th June 2018.