2017 (9) TMI 914 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Held that - The argument that proposition of law laid down in the paragraph 5 of Order of Hon ble Madras High Court in case of Indo Overseas 2006 (12) TMI 42 - HIGH COURT, MADRAS , it is seen that the said proposition of law has been considered in para 6 of the order dated 7-7-2017 and only after considering the observations of Honble High Court findings in para 7 and 8 has been arrived at - there are no error apparent - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of Mistake Application regarding order dated 7-2-2017.

Analysis:
The Rectification of Mistake Application was filed by two companies concerning an order dated 7-2-2017. The counsel for the applicants argued that the order failed to consider various aspects, including the absence of a sale and the nature of payments made. The counsel referred to previous legal decisions to support their arguments, emphasizing that the Tribunal overlooked crucial points in their judgment. The respondent, however, contended that the issues raised were already addressed in the original order and did not warrant any rectification. The Tribunal carefully examined the submissions from both sides.

The Commissioner(Appeals) had noted similarities in agreements between the appellants and their suppliers, leading to a common conclusion applicable to all parties involved. The Tribunal found that the grounds of appeal did not contest this observation, and the rectification application did not provide substantial differences to warrant a change in the original order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error in this aspect.

Regarding the argument that there was no sale involved, the Tribunal's original order adequately addressed this issue by applying the custom valuation rules due to the absence of a sale of Cine-Prints. Similarly, the contention that the royalty payments were not related to import but for post-importation use was also considered in the original order, indicating no apparent mistake.

The Tribunal also clarified that certain legal precedents and decisions cited by the counsel were not brought before them during the proceedings, hence they could not be considered in the judgment. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the propositions of law from previous court orders were indeed taken into account during the decision-making process, leading to the conclusions in the original order.

Ultimately, after a thorough analysis of the arguments presented and the contentions raised by both parties, the Tribunal dismissed the Rectification of Mistake Applications, stating that there were no apparent errors that warranted a modification of the original order. The judgment was pronounced in court on 31/07/2017.