Rectification is confined to apparent mistakes and clerical errors; merits on classification and penalty cannot be reopened.

Rectification is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and clerical slips, and cannot be used to reopen issues already decided on classification, exemption, limitation, manufacture, suppression, or penalty. The Tribunal found that the alleged omissions had been addressed in the main order, so substantive rectification was rejected. However, it accepted that the operative portion contained a typographical omission of one appellant's name in the penalty direction and corrected that clerical error. The rectification application therefore failed in substance, subject only to the limited correction of the operative direction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order contained mistakes apparent from the record warranting rectification on the merits of classification, exemption, limitation, manufacture, and penalty; (ii) whether there was a typographical error in the operative direction concerning penalty on one appellant.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier order contained mistakes apparent from the record warranting rectification on the merits of classification, exemption, limitation, manufacture, and penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal compared the rectification pleas with the earlier final order and found that the alleged omissions had in fact been dealt with in the main order. The objections regarding classification of the goods, entitlement to exemption, manufacture, limitation, suppression, and penalty were already considered in the detailed findings, and no apparent error was shown that could justify reopening those conclusions through rectification.

Conclusion: The request for substantive rectification was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether there was a typographical error in the operative direction concerning penalty on one appellant.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the operative portion had omitted the name of one appellant in the paragraph dealing with penalty. This was treated as a clerical omission, not a reconsideration of the merits, and the direction was corrected to accurately reflect the intended disposal of penalty.

Conclusion: The typographical error was corrected.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application failed in substance, except for a limited clerical correction in the operative direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to correcting apparent mistakes and clerical errors and cannot be used to reopen issues that were already considered and decided on merits.

---