2022 (8) TMI 11 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Calculation of correct Fe content - Iron Ore Fines - rejection of request for rectification by upholding that there was no clerical/arithmetical mistake or any accidental slip or omission on the assessing officer - HELD THAT - From the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals), it emerges that the rejection of the rectification application by the Assistant Commissioner was not in order and that the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGGARWAL 1995 (8) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT was to be applied to determine Fe content on the basis of exported weight of Iron Ore Fines, which would include the weight of the moisture in it. The Commissioner (Appeals) had categorically observed that the assessing officer had assessed the duty not on the basis of gross weight (including the weight of the moisture), but had determined the Fe content on dry wet basis. This itself clearly indicates that the order of Assistant Commissioner was not in order and that the same was rectifiable within the meaning of Section 154 ibid. The correct Fe content was required to be determined on the basis of the guidelines contained in the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal - The same having not been done here, in the case on hand, it is clear that the order of First Appellate Authority dated 06.10.2010 is correct. It is the settled position of law that not following the order of the Hon ble High Court or the Hon ble Apex Court would amount to mistake/error which is rectifiable under the provisions of Section 154 ibid. It is strange that in the second round and in the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority has ignored its own earlier order which has attained finality and thereby sustained a tangential order of lower authority. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority with a direction to pass a speaking order, finalizing the assessments.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of rectification request by the Assistant Commissioner.
2. Determination of Fe content for duty assessment.
3. Compliance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court's judgment in a specific case.
4. Applicability of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 for rectification of errors.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of rectification request by the Assistant Commissioner
The appellant had filed a rectification request regarding the assessment of duty on 12 Shipping Bills for exportation of Iron Ore Fines. Despite the First Appellate Authority directing the lower authority to pass a fresh order, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the request, stating there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the rejection was not in order as the Fe content assessment was not done correctly, as per the Supreme Court's judgment guidelines. The rejection was found to be rectifiable under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Determination of Fe content for duty assessment
The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the Fe content assessment should be based on the exported weight of Iron Ore Fines, including the weight of moisture, as per the Supreme Court's decision. It was noted that the assessing officer had determined the Fe content on a dry wet basis, contrary to the Court's ruling. The failure to follow the correct assessment method indicated an error that needed rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 3: Compliance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court's judgment
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the specific case of Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal for determining Fe content. The failure to adhere to the Court's decision was considered a mistake that warranted rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to finalize the assessments in line with the Court's guidelines.

Issue 4: Applicability of Section 154 for rectification of errors
The Tribunal reiterated that not following the orders of the High Court or the Supreme Court would constitute a mistake rectifiable under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized the need for correct assessments based on legal precedents and directed the lower authority to provide the appellant with the necessary relief and benefits as per law. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the original authority for a speaking order.