Mistake apparent on record: rectification denied where the application only reargued classification merits and minor factual error was immaterial.

Rectification was unavailable where the application merely reargued the merits of a classification dispute rather than identifying any mistake apparent on the record. The alleged non-consideration of misdeclaration was not an obvious error because that issue would arise only if the goods were first found not classifiable as melting scrap. Reliance on HSN notes and Section Note 8(n) of Section XV likewise disclosed no patent mistake, as the earlier order had already considered the relevant materials, competing classifications, and consistency with prior decisions. The asserted factual inaccuracy in one paragraph was only a minor recording error and did not affect the substantive classification conclusion, so the rectification request was rejected subject to a minor editorial correction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order passed in the appeal disclosed any mistake apparent on record warranting rectification, including on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration, reliance on HSN notes, Section Note 8(n) of Section XV, and an asserted factual error in the finding relating to intended use of the goods.

Analysis: The application sought reconsideration of the earlier classification decision by re-agitating the merits of the dispute. The asserted omission regarding misdeclaration was not an apparent error because that aspect would arise only if the goods were first held not classifiable as melting scrap. The challenge based on HSN notes and Section Note 8(n) did not disclose any obvious mistake, since the earlier order had already considered the relevant materials, the competing classifications, and the need for consistency with prior decisions. The alleged factual inaccuracy in para 24(vi) was only a minor recording error and did not alter the substantive conclusion reached on classification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent on record was shown to justify rectification, and the application was rejected, with only a minor editorial correction permitted in the earlier order.

---