2015 (4) TMI 309 - AT - Customs

Rejection of rectification of mistake - benefit of notification No. 64/88-Cus - violation of the post importation condition - Held that - there is no error apparent on the face of the record in respect of order dated 17-09-2014 passed by us. It is a settled position in law as held by the hon'ble Apex Court in R D C Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to rectification of mistake apparent on record. Mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and mistake should not be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. We are afraid through the present ROM application the appellant is seeking to take a contrary view on a point of law which we have considered and disposed of. Such a course of action is not permissible in law. - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application regarding customs duty demand and confiscation of imported medical equipment under notification No. 64/88-Cus.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought rectification of a Tribunal order dismissing their appeal against a customs duty demand and confiscation of medical equipment under notification No. 64/88-Cus. The appellant argued that the Customs failed to follow precedents like the Apollo Hospital case and Sir H.N. Hospital case, which stated that duty liability post rescission of the notification was not enforceable. They also cited the Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. case and NTB International Pvt. Ltd. case to support their claim of an apparent error in the Tribunal's order.

2. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's order was correct, citing the continuing obligation on the importer under notification 64/88-Cus, as established in the Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre case. They argued that the appellant's bond obligated compliance with post-importation conditions, allowing duty demand even after rescission of the notification. The Revenue opposed the rectification application, stating it would amount to a review of the order, which is impermissible.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the compliance with notification conditions, finding the appellant's failure to meet the treatment percentage requirements. The Tribunal held that the appellant's obligation under the bond continued as long as the imported goods were in use, as per the Mediwell Hospital case. The Tribunal also referenced the Bharat Diagnostic Centre case, affirming the validity of actions post-rescission of the notification for non-compliance.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application, stating that the appellant's argument did not demonstrate an obvious mistake on record. Citing the R D C Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that rectification requires a clear and patent mistake, not a debatable legal interpretation. The Tribunal dismissed the application as impermissible, upholding the original order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the rectification application regarding the customs duty demand and confiscation of medical equipment under notification No. 64/88-Cus, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments and precedents involved in the judgment.