Tribunal Dismisses Rectification Application for Import Goods Mis-declaration

The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent on record in the Final Order passed by CESTAT regarding mis-declaration of imported goods due to mixed identity of individuals named Rajendra Prasad alias Raju and Rajendra Kumar alias Raju. The Tribunal found that the mis-declaration was done by Rajendra Prasad alias Raju, an employee of the appellant, who admitted to forging import invoices. The judgment clarified the distinction between procedural rectification and rectification on merits under the Customs Act, emphasizing the limitations on rectification/review powers. The applicant was allowed to pursue alternative remedies if available.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent on record in the Final Order passed by CESTAT regarding mis-declaration of imported goods due to mixed identity of a person named Rajendra Prasad alias Raju.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules, 1982 seeking rectification of a mistake apparent on record in a Final Order passed by CESTAT. The appellant argued that the mis-declaration of imported goods was based on documents filed by another person with a similar name, Rajendra Kumar alias Raju, who is not an employee of the appellant but works independently as an intermediary. The appellant contended that the liability was wrongly imposed due to the mixed identity of the two individuals. However, the respondent, while justifying the Tribunal's order, argued that there was no error apparent on record that warranted rectification. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the evidence, concluded that the mis-declaration was indeed done by Rajendra Prasad alias Raju, the G-card holder employed by the appellant, who admitted to forging import invoices using his computer. The Tribunal found no mistake apparent on record that would justify rectification of the order.

The judgment also delves into the interpretation of the Customs Act, specifically Section 129(B)(2), which empowers the Tribunal to rectify mistakes apparent on record. It distinguishes between procedural rectification/review and rectification/review of merits. The court highlighted that while the Tribunal has the inherent power to correct palpably erroneous orders passed under misapprehension, rectification/review on merits is only permissible if there is an express power and the error is apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the Tribunal had already considered the argument of mixed identity, and therefore, there was no alleged apparent error on record justifying rectification.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that it lacked merit. The applicant was granted the liberty to seek an appropriate remedy if available. The judgment emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between procedural rectification and rectification on merits, highlighting the limitations on rectification/review powers based on the Customs Act provisions and judicial precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the legal reasoning behind the decision regarding the rectification of a mistake apparent on record in a case involving mixed identity and mis-declaration of imported goods.

---