Intentional withdrawal of appeals cannot justify recall absent a mistake apparent from the record.

Withdrawal of appeals by counsel was treated as authorised and intentional, not as an inadvertent lapse or mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that the applicants' own prior assertion that the appeals were withdrawn to pursue another forum confirmed the deliberate nature of the withdrawal, making the principle applicable to accidental omissions inapplicable. It further stated that its procedural recall power and Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act could not be used to reopen a validly passed order absent a patent error. The applications for rectification and recall were therefore rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the withdrawal of the appeals by the advocate, in the circumstances of the case, gave rise to any mistake apparent from the record warranting recall of the Tribunal's earlier final order.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the advocate who appeared for the applicants was empowered to withdraw the appeals and that the withdrawal was intentional, as reflected in the applicants' own averments before the High Court that they withdrew the appeals in the hope of pursuing the matter before another forum. The reliance placed on the principle that an unintentional lapse may be corrected was held inapplicable because the present case did not involve an inadvertent omission. The Tribunal also noted that its power under the procedural rules and Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act could not be invoked to recall a validly passed order in the absence of any mistake apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The applications for rectification and recall were not maintainable and were rejected.

---