2022 (6) TMI 319 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Error apparent on the face of record or not - It is submitted by the applicant that the final order, for reason of having been passed almost four months after the date of hearing, should be recalled - HELD THAT - The order makes it abundantly clear that, as the importer, M/s Hindustan Engineering Corporation, had had their appeal dismissed in limine, the finding in the orders impugned before the Tribunal insofar as imports are concerned had attained finality with the consideration of the appeals of the applicant herein restricted only to acts of omission and commission that contributed to the breach for which goods were confiscated. The present applications of Shri Suketu J Mody for reconsideration of the findings on merit appears to be a ploy to substitute for lack of challenge to the offence leading to confiscation. The technical issue raised by the applicant herein for rectification of mistake pertaining to the finding and jurisdiction are tantamount to seeking review of the order which is the prerogative of the appellate courts. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order disposing off appeals against Commissioner of Customs' orders; Absence of appeal details in the Tribunal's order; Allegation of submissions and case law not being considered; Challenge to findings on merit; Technical issue regarding jurisdiction; Interpretation of the expression 'presumptive heir' in the order; Appeal dismissal except for enumeration correction.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around applications seeking rectification of a mistake claimed in the final order disposing off appeals against orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The applicant, Mr. Suketu J Mody, contested penalties imposed on him in various orders but did not succeed before the Tribunal. The main contention was recalling the final order due to the delay in its passing, which was rejected by the Tribunal citing consideration of multiple appellants with inter-linked issues. The Tribunal directed the inclusion of appeal details of Mr. Mody in the order, rectifying the omission.

Further, the applicant argued that his submissions and cited case law were not adequately addressed in the Tribunal's order. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the details were recorded in the note of proceedings and considered in determining the appeal outcomes. The judgment clarified that the appeals of Mr. Mody were restricted to acts contributing to the breach for which goods were confiscated, emphasizing that the challenge to findings on merit seemed to compensate for the lack of challenging the underlying offence.

Additionally, a technical issue was raised concerning jurisdiction, which the Tribunal viewed as an attempt to seek a review, falling under the appellate courts' prerogative. The applicant also relied on the expression 'presumptive heir' in the order to challenge the penalty, but the Tribunal dismissed this argument, highlighting it as a passing observation not solely responsible for upholding the findings against the applicant. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the applications except for the correction of appeal enumeration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to rectification of mistakes in the final order, absence of appeal details, consideration of submissions and case law, challenges to findings on merit, technical jurisdictional matters, interpretation of legal expressions, and the final dismissal of the appeals except for the directed correction in the enumeration of appeals.