2017 (6) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rectifies errors in Customs Act order under s. 129A(2), emphasizes jurisdiction limits

Commissioner of Customs (Import - I), Mumbai Zone - I Versus Modipon Fibres Co.

The tribunal allowed the application to rectify mistakes apparent from the record in the final order under section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The ... Rectification of mistake - section 129A(2) of CA, 1962 - description of the authority that passed the impugned order - It is contended that the authority has been variously shown as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II and as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III. Upon scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the appellate authority has described himself as Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II - Held that: - we are not certain about the identity of the competent appellate authority. In view of this application for rectification mistakes, and there being no prejudice to either side, we direct the deletion of all ordinal Roman numerals with reference to the appellate authority - all references to the first appellate authority shall read as 'Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai '. Illegality of our final order - It is alleged that the order has been issued beyond the period stipulated for issue after conclusion of hearing and without recourse to the condoning authority of the President. In our opinion, this is presumptuous on the part of the applicant-Commissioner - Held that: - As a Tribunal composed of public servants, we acknowledge that we are accountable to the citizenry at large. We, however would not submit ourselves to executive authority or to render an explanation of conduct to such executive authority. It would do well for executive authorities to limit their actions to their appropriate stations in the adjudicating hierarchy and to disabuse from them needs mind that the Tribunal is a subordinate authority who is answerable to them. The application is allowed to the limited extent of appropriate modification of the nomenclature of the first appellate authority - decided partly in favor of applicant. Issues:1. Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the final order.2. Description of the authority passing the impugned order.3. Alleged illegality of the final order issued beyond the stipulated period.4. Reliance on a specific Tribunal decision in the final order.5. Disposal of various decisions cited by the respondent in the order.Analysis:Issue 1: Rectification of MistakesThe applications were filed under section 129A(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the final order. Four distinct errors were pointed out by the Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai Customs Zone - I.Issue 2: Description of the AuthorityThe first error pertained to the description of the authority that passed the impugned order, leading to confusion about the competent appellate authority. The tribunal directed the deletion of all ordinal Roman numerals with reference to the appellate authority, ensuring clarity in the order.Issue 3: Alleged Illegality of Final OrderThe fourth error sought to be rectified was the alleged illegality of the final order issued beyond the stipulated period without recourse to the condoning authority of the President. The tribunal dismissed this claim, emphasizing that the order was issued under section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962, and there was no statutory restriction specifying a time limit for issuing the order after the hearing.Issue 4: Reliance on Tribunal DecisionThe contention that reliance on a specific Tribunal decision in the final order was misplaced was addressed by the tribunal. It clarified that the decision was based on orders cited and it was not within their jurisdiction to revisit the correctness of their findings. The final authority to determine the legality of the order pertaining to rate of duty and valuation lies with the Hon'ble Supreme Court.Issue 5: Disposal of Various DecisionsThe tribunal rejected the argument that various decisions cited by the respondent were not discussed at length and disposed of in the order. It emphasized that an elaborate disposal of submissions was provided, and the relevance of judicial precedents to specific facts is a matter of conclusion. The tribunal refused to sit in judgment on their own order and highlighted that any discrepancies with binding judicial precedents should be determined by the appellate jurisdiction.In conclusion, the application was allowed to the limited extent of modifying the nomenclature of the first appellate authority, clarifying the issues raised and providing detailed reasoning for each contention addressed in the judgment.