Tribunal denies rectification of duty relief order due to lack of crucial evidence

The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistakes in final orders regarding duty liability relief based on revised wastage norms communicated after the orders were passed. The Tribunal held that the failure to present crucial communications during the hearing led to the order being rightfully passed based on the existing record. Emphasizing the importance of due diligence and active participation in legal proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that correcting the mistake would amount to reviewing the order and introducing records piecemeal, which is not in the interest of justice.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistakes in final orders of the Tribunal regarding duty liability relief based on revised wastage norms communicated after the final orders were passed.

Analysis:
1. The applicants sought rectification of mistakes in the final orders of the Tribunal, seeking relief from duty liability due to revised wastage norms communicated by the competent authority after the final orders were passed. The applicants argued that the norms of wastage had been revised in their case by letters issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade between 23rd September 2008 and 26th November 2008.

2. The Learned Counsel for the applicant admitted that the communications regarding revised wastage norms were not presented before the Tribunal during the hearing on 14th September 2017, when the final order was dictated. No plea was made during the hearing about possessing such communications. This failure to bring out these facts during the hearing led to the order being passed based on the available record at that time.

3. The Tribunal held that there was no mistake in the order pronounced, as the duty of the adjudging authority is to apply known law to established facts. Since the revised wastage norms were not established during the hearing, the order was rightfully passed based on the existing record. Correcting this mistake would essentially amount to reviewing the order, leading to a chaotic process of introducing records piecemeal, which is not in the interest of justice.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the failure of the applicant to make the Tribunal aware of the relevant facts was not a correctable mistake. It was noted that the applicant's negligence in not presenting crucial information known to them or their representative at the time of the hearing displayed a casual approach towards their own grievance and a disregard for the justice provided by the Tribunal.

5. Referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the Tribunal acknowledged that technicalities should not impede the delivery of justice. However, the failure to consider subsequent developments that could impact the outcome due to negligence or tardiness in presenting relevant facts was not a mere technicality but a serious matter. The Tribunal highlighted that an appellant seeking justice must fully engage with the legal process and present all relevant information.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justification to allow the application for rectification of mistakes. The applications were rejected, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and active participation in the legal proceedings to ensure a fair and just outcome.

---