2016 (10) TMI 268 - HC - Customs

Review application - maintainability - scope of the court to review an order - appeal decided under misconception that the seized consignment was opened only when the nature of goods was taken up by the Custom Officers, whereas the consignment was, admittedly, already opened by the Trade Tax Officer on 21.06.2007 - Held that - the decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others 2013 (4) TMI 736 - SUPREME COURT relied upon where it was held that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. No error in the order under review - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Review application to reconsider judgment based on misinterpretation of facts and legal provisions.

Analysis:
The review application sought to challenge a judgment dated 22.09.2015, alleging a misconception by the Court regarding the status of the seized consignment. The review applicant contended that the consignment had been opened by the Trade Tax Officer before the Custom Officers examined it, contrary to the Court's understanding. Reference was made to para 32.1 of the paper book, emphasizing the oversight by the Court in this regard. Additionally, the appellant's counsel argued against imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the Commissioner's findings. The review applicant also disputed the absence of documentation for the consignment labeled as auto parts and machinery, pointing out inconsistencies in the descriptions provided in the show cause notice.

The respondent's counsel objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that any alleged errors should be addressed through an appeal to a higher court. Citing a Supreme Court decision in Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others, the respondent's counsel argued that the scope of review is limited and should not be used as a substitute for an appeal. The Court referred to legal precedents emphasizing that review proceedings are not avenues for re-arguing a case or correcting mere errors, but are confined to specific grounds such as mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the order under review, the Court found that the issues raised in the review application had already been addressed in the original judgment. Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no error in the initial decision and dismissed the review petition.

In summary, the Court's analysis focused on the limitations of review proceedings, emphasizing that such processes are not meant to reevaluate decisions based on mere errors but are restricted to specific grounds as per legal provisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the scope of review as outlined in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and reiterated that review is not a substitute for an appeal but a mechanism to address clear and evident mistakes in the record.