2019 (4) TMI 491 - AT - Customs

Rectification granted for consignment error; confiscation upheld.

The bench partially allowed the rectification application, correcting a typographical error in the Final Order that incorrectly mentioned putrefiable ... Rectification of mistake - typographical error or not - Held that:- It is not found that the said letters do not indicate that there was putrefiable organic matter in the consignment which was inspected. The consignment was first visually examined by the APPCB on 24.02.2006 in the customs area and gave a prima facie view that it contains bottles, cans, tins and some sort of dust and are low grade material. Subsequently, on permission the consignment was cleared but with a condition that there would be segregation in the appellant's factory by APPCB - there seems to be typographical error which has crept in - The first error which was sought to be rectified by the learned counsel is rectified and the application for rectification to that extent is disposed of. When it is undisputed that in the case in hand there is presence of non-fibrous material, the consignment is liable for confiscation - there is no error apparent on the face of the records, in the case in hand upholding the redemption fine and reducing the penalty imposed. The application filed by the appellant/applicant is rejected. Issues:Rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/31825-31827/2017 dated 15.11.2017 regarding the confiscation of consignment due to the presence of non-fibrous material and imposition of redemption fine and penalties.Analysis:1. The applicant sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 15.11.2017, claiming that the bench incorrectly recorded the presence of putrefiable organic matter in the consignment, leading to its confiscation and imposition of fines. The applicant argued that the documents from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) did not support the finding of putrefiable material in the consignment. The applicant requested the order to be recalled and modified.2. The departmental representative contended that the Tribunal's order was accurate, emphasizing that 2.71% non-fibrous material was found in the consignment, which was significant and required proper disposal as per APPCB norms.3. Upon careful consideration, the bench reviewed the submissions and documents. It was observed that there was a typographical error in Para 5 of the original order, incorrectly mentioning putrefiable organic matter instead of non-fibrous material. The corrected version clarified that the consignment contained 2.71% non-fibrous material, within permissible limits, and the confiscation and penalties were unjustified based on this error.4. The bench examined the APPCB letters and confirmed that there was no evidence of putrefiable material in the consignment. The initial visual examination by APPCB indicated low-grade materials like bottles and cans, with subsequent segregation at the appellant's factory revealing non-fibrous material constituting 2.71% of the total consignment. The rectification was made to reflect the accurate findings and correct the typographical error.5. The bench rejected the application for rectification concerning the redemption fine and penalties, as it upheld the original decision based on the presence of non-fibrous material justifying the confiscation of the consignment. The order dated 15.11.2017 was deemed correct, and no error was found in imposing the redemption fine and reducing the penalties.In conclusion, the rectification application was partially allowed to correct the typographical error regarding the nature of material in the consignment, but the original decision on confiscation and penalties was upheld due to the presence of non-fibrous material justifying the actions taken by the Tribunal.