Rectification for apparent error fails where the alleged omitted contention was not part of the appellate record.

Rectification was refused because the alleged omission was not supported by the record and did not show any error apparent on the face of the order. The Tribunal noted that the contention that normal value should be based on domestic sale price, rather than cost of production, had not been raised in the memorandum of appeal, and the appellant's stand before the Designated Authority was different. In these circumstances, the correction application could not be used to introduce a new plea, and the earlier order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record for not accepting the plea that the normal value should have been determined on the basis of the domestic sale price instead of the cost of production.

Analysis: The application for correction was founded on the claim that a material contention had been omitted in the earlier order. The Tribunal found that no such contention had been raised in the memorandum of appeal and that the appellant's position before the Designated Authority was different. On that basis, the claimed mistake did not disclose any apparent error in the order.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was made out, and the correction application was rejected against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined rectification and left the earlier order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is not available where the alleged omission is unsupported by the record and does not demonstrate an apparent error in the order.

---