Review jurisdiction and error apparent on the record led to recall of the earlier customs judgment.

Review jurisdiction is confined to narrow grounds, including discovery of new material or an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier judgment was said to have omitted consideration of the original authority's finding that overall foreign exchange earnings had to be counted towards discharge of export obligation, and there was no adjudication on that point. It was also said to have overlooked that the importer's success before the Tribunal rested on Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a basis not determinative of liability under the Customs Act. The judgment under review was therefore treated as vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and fit to be recalled.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the earlier judgment in the customs appeal.

Analysis: The review jurisdiction is confined to narrow grounds such as discovery of new material or an error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier judgment had proceeded without dealing with a finding of the original authority that the overall foreign exchange earnings were to be reckoned towards discharge of export obligation, and there was no discussion or adjudication of that point by the Tribunal. The judgment under review also appears to have overlooked the distinct basis on which the importer had succeeded before the Tribunal with reference to Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was not determinative of liability under the Customs Act.

Conclusion: The judgment under review suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record and deserved to be recalled.

---