9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivities and as a sequel thereof, search of the house of the respondent herein was also made resulting in the seizure of goods of foreign origin valued in all ₹ 1,31,587.50 in the shape of following items of goods :- 1. SANYO Radio Cassette Tape Recorders M 6400 H (made in Japan) ... 36 Nos. 2. MECCA Car Stereo Cassette Tape Players ... 20 Nos. 3. OCEAN Stereo Car Cassette Tape Players ... 54 Nos. 4. Car Cassette Speakers ... 45 pairs 5. Textiles (Pant Pieces) ... 16.75 Metres The respondent could not produce any Customs paid receipts, import licence or any bill or voucher to prove his lawful possession of the goods of the foreign origin and therefore the seizure was effected under a mahazar on the reasonable belief that the goods were imported illicitly into India from foreign country without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- (4) Pushparaj ... ₹ 200/- (5) Maichael Raj ... ₹ 200/- (6) Francis ... ₹ 200/- (7) Mani ... ₹ 200/- 4. Subsequently, the Adjudicating Authority by his order dated 23-9-1983 has passed an amendment to the earlier order dated 30-10-1982 in the following terms :- Wheras in the said proceedings, Shri Samudram, son of Shri Thangavel Nadar, No. 38, Melashanmughapuram, First Street, Tuticorin, had been made a party and show cause notice issued to him and his part in the entire transaction discussed in paragraphs 12 and 13 ibid. of the said order, due to accidental slip and omission the findings did not refer to his case. I accordingly order that the following may be added to the said order at the places indicated below as correction under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 : After para 16 add the following : It is also obvious that Shri Samudram has taken activ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error in construing the scope of powers under Section 154 of the Act and that the order passed in the form of an addendum on 23-9-1983 is quite in accordance with law, the same having rectified an error, which, according to the learned Counsel and also as noticed in the order dated 23-9-1983 itself, was due to an accidental slip and omission. The learned Counsel endeavoured to draw inspiration from Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure said to be in pari materia provision. 6. Per contra, Mr. Akbar Ali Dhala, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, strenuously argued that the powers under Section 154 of the Act cannot be equated to the powers of the court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal below to come to the conclusion that the omission or lapse committed by the Adjudicating Authority in its original order dated 30-10-1982 cannot be comprehended or could be said to be of the nature visualized for correction under Section 154 of the Act and particularly within the scope of the latter provision ..... or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission ..... and therefore the well- merited conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 154 of the Act it is unnecessary to even rest our decision or any possibly controversial claim of inherent power. In the teeth of Section 154 of the Act it becomes necessary for us to consider the scope and purport of the power with reference to the object of the power conferred therein. In adverting to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Apex Court observed that under Section 152, clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties. Emphasis has also been made by the Apex Court that it is manifest from the specific provision contained therein that errors arising from an accidental slip can also be corrected subsequently not only in a decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the court, but even in a judgment pronounce and signed by the court. The same view has been taken after adverting to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision by a learned single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in Periasami Gounder v. Ramasami Gounder and Others (1981 T.L.N.J. 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the correction made in the form of an addendum by an order dated 23-9-1983 can be said to be of an error arising from any accidental slip or omission. The Authority which passed the order claims that the error sought to be rectified was due to accidental slip and omission in not referring specifically to the case of the respondent Samudram. The decisions earlier noticed would go to indicate that the power to correct an error in the judgment or order, which resulted from any accidental slip or omission before, could be invoked in a given case. it must in the process be endeavoured to find out what really the learned Judge or the Authority which committed the error which is sought to be rectified intended while passing the Judgment order in question. The power of correction has been held in those decisions to be available in order to effect a correction to a judgment or order to bring the same with the real intention, as is explicit from the judgment or order of the Judge or the authority concerned. 12. In Kuruvilla v. State Bank of Travancore (A.I.R. 1989, Kerala 68), a learned single Judge has indicated the test for identifying an accidental slip or omission as contemplated u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal order, the name of the respondent is specifically referred to in paragraph 4(v) adverting to his statement and details of possession and seizure of the goods from him. The facts noticed supra therefore would go to show that the Adjudicating Authority would not have ever intended to exonerate the respondent even when at the time when it passed the original order dated 30-10-1982 and noticing the mistake and error the same came to be rectified by issuing of an addendum to the earlier order by passing the subsequent order dated 23-9-1983. The proceedings dated 23-9-1983, in our view, is well within the scope of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Act and the view taken by the Tribunal below to the contra does not accord well with the scope and purport as also the object of the Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal, in our view, has proceeded in a superficial manner and the construction placed by the Tribunal on the scope of Section 154 of the Act, if agreed to, would result in mutilating a portion of the provision and defeating the very object of such a provision. The further view taken by the Tribunal is that the omission in this case cannot be said to be a mere error, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
