9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the persons found involved in smuggling activities 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 payment of duty and without the requisite I.T.C. Licence. Statements were also said to have been recorded and thereafter adjudication proceedings were initiated by the Additional Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madurai. 3. The Adjudicating Authority appears to have as found noticed in the order of adjudi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 active part in concealing the contraband goods in his own house and therefore, rendered himself liable to penal action". In para 18, under the heading "Order" after Sl. No. 7 relating to Mani, add the following : "8. Samudram ... ₹ 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only)"." The effect of the above amendment made in the purported exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Act is to indict the respondent also and impose a penalty of ₹ 7,500/- as in the case of the others. Aggrieved, the respondent has filed an appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. CD (MAS) 619/83. The Tribunal by its order dated 24-3-1984 held that the amendment made in the form of an addendum by an order dated 23-9-1983 to the earlier order of adjudication dated 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me 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 conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal does not call for interference by taking a different view. The learned Counsel also contended that the omission in the original order of adjudication dated 30-10-1982 to record any finding indicting the respondent or finding him guilty or imposing any penalty will amount to a total non-application of mind and not merely an error capable of being corrected or rectified in exercise of the powers under Sec. 154 of the Act. 7. Learned Counsel appearing on either side invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the Act as also the findings recorded in the original order as also the order issued by way of addendum on 23-9-1983 and the order of the Tribunal dated 24-3-1984 holding the issue in favour of the respondent. 8. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 127). The learned single Judge while dealing with this issue, has observed as hereunder :- "To promote justice and to maintain serenity in the court records, I propose to approach from a different angle. Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code, enable the court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. If any authority is needed the same is found in Samarendra Nath Sinha and Another v. Krishna Kumar Nag [1967 (2) S.C. R.P. 18 = A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court P. 1440]. In this case the learned Judge while upholding the validity of Ex. B-21 allowed the appeal except as regards the items purchased, by the respondent under Ex. B-21. It is common ground that the respondent purchased S. No. 320 form S. only. The learned judge had nowhere indicated ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 under Section 152. It was observed therein by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court that a convenient and general test that can be applied to determine whether the correction sought for is in the field of accidental slip or omission or not, is to examine whether the judgment as it stands represents the intention of the Judge at the time he made it and if it does, then a mistake in it cannot be treated as an accidental slip or omission. This principle which has our approval too, if applied, it has to be ascertained as to what could have been the situation of the Adjudicating Authority, which passed the order dated 30-10-1982 in order to find out whether the error is one, which would fall under the category of those arising from an accidental slip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort 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, which could be said to be patent on the order. A perusal of the order and the records pertaining thereto does not in our view, warrant or justify the said view taken by the Tribunal. In our view, the order even on a cursory perusal, would go to show that though the adjudication proceedings have been initiated against about 8 persons including the respondent and notices have been served on the respondent also, there is no concrete or conclusive finding exonerating him also in the order and this is an obvious and patent error not only of law, but also of a fact apparently starring and consequently, the Adjudicating Authority had a duty in law to rectify such an error as and when it came to be noticed subsequently. Therefore, the order passed on 23-9-1983 is well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
