Tribunal denies Request for Oral Modification in lead ingot shortage case, upholding Final Order The Tribunal dismissed the Request for Oral Modification (ROM) application seeking the re-call of a Final Order that modified orders related to shortages ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal denies Request for Oral Modification in lead ingot shortage case, upholding Final Order
The Tribunal dismissed the Request for Oral Modification (ROM) application seeking the re-call of a Final Order that modified orders related to shortages of lead ingots. The Tribunal held that the alleged contradictions in the impugned order did not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It emphasized that the scope of ROM was limited to correcting typographical or other obvious mistakes, not re-evaluating factual findings. Therefore, the ROM application was dismissed, affirming the Final Order modifying the orders concerning the lead ingot shortages.
Issues: Request for re-call of Final Order due to alleged contradictions in findings regarding shortages of lead ingots imported by the appellants.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to a ROM application seeking the re-call of a Final Order dated 1-6-2004, which modified the orders under appeal related to shortages of 274.629 Mts. of lead ingots. The counsel argued that there were contradictions in the impugned order regarding the findings of the Bench on the said shortages. The Tribunal, after hearing the submissions and reviewing the impugned order, noted that even if there were variations in observations made by the Bench, it did not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the alleged mistake was debatable and required re-appreciation of the facts, which was beyond the scope of a ROM application. The ROM application was dismissed as the scope of ROM was limited to correcting typographical or other mistakes apparent on the face of the record.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the discrepancies highlighted by the counsel did not meet the threshold of a mistake apparent on the face of the record, as required for a ROM application. The Tribunal clarified that the scope of ROM was narrow and did not extend to re-evaluating factual findings or engaging in a detailed review of the case. Consequently, the ROM application was dismissed, affirming the Final Order dated 1-6-2004 modifying the orders under appeal related to the shortages of lead ingots imported by the appellants.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.