Rectification for apparent error cannot reopen merits or admit fresh evidence when the issue is debatable.

Section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act permits only correction of a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed time; it does not allow the Tribunal to reopen an appeal, rehear the matter, or admit additional evidence to reconsider the merits. The Tribunal's finding that 4% of the return represented capital accumulation was a conscious conclusion based on the record and could not be treated as an obvious error amenable to rectification. Accordingly, the review petition and the petition for additional evidence were not maintainable and were dismissed, while ancillary instalment relief for payment of the determined amount was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 20 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 to review its earlier appellate order and permit fresh/additional evidence, and whether the Tribunal's assessment of capital accumulation at 4% disclosed a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: Section 20 authorises only amendment of an order to rectify a mistake apparent from the record within the prescribed period. It does not confer power to reopen the appeal, re-hear the matter afresh, or permit the parties to adduce additional evidence so as to redecide the controversy on merits. The determination that 4% of the return was attributable to capital accumulation was a conscious conclusion reached after hearing the parties and on appreciation of materials already on record. Such a conclusion is debatable at best and cannot be characterised as an obvious mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 20.

Conclusion: The review petition and the connected petition for leading additional evidence were not maintainable and were rightly dismissed. The challenge to the Tribunal's 4% capital-accumulation finding also failed.

Final Conclusion: The order affirmed the limited scope of rectification under the Act, declined reopening of the merits through review or additional evidence, and only granted ancillary instalment relief for payment of the amount determined.

Ratio Decidendi: A review or rectification provision confined to correcting a mistake apparent from the record cannot be used to reopen an appeal, reconsider the merits, or receive additional evidence on a debatable question.

---