Tribunal upholds original order, citing valuation criteria, post-hearing limitations, separate appeals, and penalty justification.

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, finding no errors in the original order. The Tribunal's analysis supported the decision, affirming that valuation was not solely based on a quotation, the Apex Court judgment was applicable, post-hearing submissions made after the reservation date could not be considered, separate appeals were heard and decided individually, valuation price discrepancies were within the Adjudicating Authority's discretion, and penalty imposition was justified due to deliberate value suppression.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order

I. Valuation based on quotation not relied upon by Commissioner
The appellant argued that the Commissioner did not consider the quotations received via Fax machine. However, the Tribunal clarified that valuation was not solely based on the quotation but also on comparable prices from the brand owner's website and the distributor. The Tribunal found no error in its decision.

II. Applicability of Apex Court judgment
The appellant contended that a specific Apex Court judgment was not applicable due to different facts. The Tribunal explained that the judgment applied as common evidence was relied upon in both cases, including the present one, leading to a correct application of the judgment.

III. Non-consideration of post-hearing submissions
The appellant claimed that their post-hearing submissions were not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that submissions made after the order reservation date could not be entertained to maintain fairness. As the record did not show submission details, the Tribunal found no error in not considering them.

IV. Separate hearing of appeals
The appellant argued that two appeals should have been heard together. The Tribunal clarified that both appeals were heard and decided separately, dismissing the relevance of the other appeal for the rectification issue.

V. Discrepancy in valuation price
Regarding the variance in valuation prices, the Tribunal explained that the Adjudicating Authority had the discretion to adjust values under Customs Valuation Rules. The Tribunal found no error in the valuation process.

VI. Imposition of penalty in lieu of redemption fine
The appellant challenged the penalty imposition. The Tribunal justified the penalty by stating that deliberate value suppression made goods liable for confiscation, justifying the penalty imposition. The Tribunal found no error in the penalty imposition decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, stating that no error was found in the original order. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of each issue supported the decision to maintain the original order.

---