9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplications may briefly be stated as under : 3. The applicant No. 1 company, M/s. R.J.S. Studio Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, applicants No. 2 and 3 imported musical instruments for which they filed Bill of Entry No. 591961 dated 1-11-1997 for getting the same cleared from the Air Cargo Unit, IGI Airport, New Delhi. They appended declaration along with that Bill of Entry regarding the correctness of the invoices and the valuation of the goods and their country of origin. However, on examination these documents were found to be not correct. The origin of the country given was wrong and the goods were also found to had been undervalued in order to avoid the payment of duty. The Commissioner of Customs who adjudicated the case ordered confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n tallies with the price declared by them in the documents and (iv) the valuation of the goods under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 1988, had not been properly made as the quotations of M/s. Tom Lee Music Ltd. and M/s. Swee Lee Company, Singapore had been wrongly accepted and the names and addresses of persons who gave those quotations of these companies, were not disclosed to them (v) the Hongkong Customs authorities did not verify the contents of the declaration regarding the value of the goods made by the supplier, (vi) the ratio of the law laid down in Sharp Business Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 relied upon by the Tribunal had not been approved by the Apex Court in a subsequent case Sounds Images v. CC - 2000 (117) E.L.T. 538 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erits of the final order of the Tribunal and apparently cannot be gone into in their present ROM applications. No mistake appearing apparently on the face of the order of the Tribunal has been pointed out. 11. Similarly, applicant No. 1 company, M/s. R.J.S. Studio had in the application only assailed the final order of the Tribunal on the ground that the copy of the price list of their supplier was duly stamped, but had not been considered and that the certificate produced by them of the manufacturer of the goods M/s Ronald Corporation had been wrongly ignored and the quotations given by the other dealers of the musical instruments had been wrongly accepted and considered, while passing the impugned order by the Tribunal. All these ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was considered and referred by the Tribunal in paras 13 and 14 of the judgment. The Apex Court had nowhere in that case overruled the law laid down in Sharp Business Pvt. Ltd. case, supra. The law laid down in that case by the Apex Court could not be made applicable to the applicants case keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence on record. Therefore, no mistake of law can be said to have occurred on that account so as to call for any rectification. 13. It is well settled that an aggrieved party can seek through the ROM application, rectification of mistake of fact or law appearing on the face of the order passed against it, by the Tribunal or the Court. The fact that according to the aggrieved party the order is errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
