9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 596 - HC - CustomsRectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. VERSUS RAJ GROW IMPEX LLP AND ORS. 2021 (6) TMI 778 - SUPREME COURT has held that matters relating to the interveners shall also be governed by the findings of this judgment and appropriate orders in their regard shall be passed by the authorities/Courts, wherever their matters relating to the subject goods are pending but, their options of further appeal, only in relation to the quantum of amount payable, including that of penalty, is left open - HELD THAT - The review petitioner states that no error apparent on the face of the record could be pointed, and the review petitioner is constrained to move this Court for necessary directions on the lines of the judgment of the Supreme Court. We are afraid that the scope of review of our order is not properly appreciated by the review petitioner. Having seen that there is no error apparent on the face of record, we are convinced that by referring to the judgment dated 17.06.2021 we ought not to review our order and issue directions on the lines indicated - revision petition dismissed.
Issues:
Review of judgment based on Supreme Court ruling dated 17.06.2021. Analysis: The High Court dealt with a review petition filed by the appellant in Customs Appeal No.13/2020. The review petition was based on a Supreme Court judgment dated 17.06.2021 in Union of India v. M/s. Raj Grow Impex LLP. The Supreme Court's ruling specified that matters related to interveners would be governed by the findings of the judgment, with options for further appeal on the quantum of amount payable. The review petitioner sought similar consideration based on this judgment. However, the High Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and declined to review its order. The High Court emphasized that the scope of review was not properly understood by the review petitioner, leading to the dismissal of the review petition without issuing any directions as requested. In summary, the High Court's decision was based on the lack of any apparent errors in the original judgment that warranted a review. Despite the review petitioner's reference to the Supreme Court's ruling, the High Court found no grounds to alter its decision. The High Court emphasized the importance of understanding the scope of review and concluded that the review petition lacked merit, resulting in its dismissal without any costs imposed.
|
