9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphical error in the said order when it is recorded that the goods are being exported by the manufacturer namely M/s. Xinjiang Zhongtai Chemical Co. Ltd., China. The said company has been shown as shipper on the Bill of Lading No. HSKE00770 though with respect to other Bill of Ladings there are other shippers as well. Similarly, M/s. Vesak Singapore PTE Ltd. is wrongly observed as indenting agent or broker in the transaction of import by the appellant. It is submitted that M/s. Vesak Singapore PTE Ltd. is rather the beneficial owner. Both these observations are mentioned to be the typographical errors and accordingly are prayed to be rectified. 3. Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that the Tribunal, vide the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia. M/s Vesak Singapore PTE Ltd., party appears to be the beneficial owner in the transaction of import by the appellant from China. I find that court below have erred in holding that actual exporter is M/s Vesak Singapore and not the shipper - M/s Xinjiang Zhongtai Chemical Co. Ltd., China. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is rightly paid Anti Dumping duty under Sl. No. 14 of Notification No. 27/2014-CUS (ADD) - U.S. $ 91.27. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled for consequential benefit, if any. 7. Coming to the another prayer about recomputation of ADD, I observe that the scope of rectification of mistake is very limited. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited [2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.)] also held that: "an error cannot be said to be apparent on the facts of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on the mere looking and does not need long drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may be conceivably be two opinions". Even under GST, in the case of VISHAKA EXPORTS Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) (FAC), TIRUPPUR [2023 (71) G.S.T.L. 383 (Mad.)], the Court had held as follows: "A careful perusal of this communication which according to writ petitioner is a rectification application, leaves this Court with the considered view that it does not qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
