1991 (8) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from record under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The application for Rectification of Mistake apparent from record was filed under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The grounds for rectification included various pleas such as plea against loading of invoice without evidence, plea against enhancement of invoice value without allegation of illegal remittance of Foreign Exchange, plea against not giving the same standard of credence to foreign suppliers' certificates, plea regarding non-submission of manufacturers' invoice, and plea related to shareholding of a U.K. company in the equity capital of the appellants. The applicant argued that without evidence, it was impermissible to discard the invoice value and resort to Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The consultant cited several decisions supporting the Tribunal's power to rectify a mistake apparent on the face of the record.

The respondent contended that the rectification application was an attempt to review the order rather than rectify any apparent mistakes. Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the respondent argued that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not requiring lengthy reasoning to establish. The Tribunal carefully examined the records and arguments from both sides. It was noted that the Tribunal has the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record but not to review the order. The Tribunal reiterated that the value of imported goods must be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, and all relevant aspects were considered in the order. The Tribunal found that the pleas raised in the rectification application did not reveal any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake as it did not find any mistake apparent on the face of the record in its order. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification power does not extend to reviewing the order already passed, and the pleas raised by the applicant did not demonstrate any such mistake.