2020 (12) TMI 125 - HC - Customs

Review of Order - error apparent on the face of record - non-fulfilment of mandatory requirement of pre-deposit - Section 129(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The Apex Court in the case of HARIDAS DAS VERSUS SMT. USHA RANI BANIK ORS 2006 (3) TMI 686 - SUPREME COURT has held that rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner in fact under the guise of review is challenging the order passed by this Court, which is under review. Review petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit under Section 129(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Grounds for review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.
3. Definition and scope of "error apparent on the face of the record".
4. Limitations of review jurisdiction and re-appreciation of evidence.
5. Applicability of subsequent decisions or judgments in review petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with the Mandatory Requirement of Pre-Deposit under Section 129(3) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner challenged the judgment dated 30/09/2019, where the court upheld the Tribunal's order due to non-fulfillment of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review.

2. Grounds for Review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908:
The court referenced the Apex Court's ruling in "Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) and Ors." which elucidates the scope of review under Section 114 CPC. The parameters for review are prescribed in Order 47 CPC, allowing rehearing only for mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The court emphasized that a review is not an appeal in disguise and lies only for patent errors.

3. Definition and Scope of "Error Apparent on the Face of the Record":
The court cited "State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr." to clarify that an error apparent on the face of the record signifies an error evident per se from the case record, not requiring detailed examination or reasoning. The court reiterated that the petitioner failed to point out any such error, confirming the original decision was made on merits.

4. Limitations of Review Jurisdiction and Re-Appreciation of Evidence:
The judgment discussed the limitations of review jurisdiction as outlined in "Inderchand Jain (dead) Through LRs Vs. Motilal (dead) Through LRs." The court underscored that review cannot be used for re-appreciation of evidence or rehearing a case without any apparent error on the face of the record. The principles restrict review to errors that are manifest and do not require extensive reasoning.

5. Applicability of Subsequent Decisions or Judgments in Review Petitions:
The court referred to the ruling in "S. Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission" to highlight that review is permissible only if the judgment is vitiated by an apparent error or palpable wrong that is self-evident. The court concluded that the review petition did not meet these criteria, and thus, there was no basis for altering the original judgment.

Conclusion:
The court found no sufficient reason to review the order dated 30/09/2019 in OTA No.04/2019. The review petition was dismissed, affirming the original decision and emphasizing the strict limitations on the scope of review under the relevant legal provisions. The certified copy of the judgment was issued as per rules.

← Previous Next →