Rectification under Section 129B(2) of Customs Act limited to patent mistakes; factual merits cannot be reopened on rectification.

Explains scope of rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act: only patent, obvious mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record may be corrected, and rectification cannot be used to substitute the original order or re-open factual appreciation. Debatable legal points and disputes on evidence do not qualify as mistakes apparent from the record, and conclusions based on appreciation of evidence are not amenable to rectification. Applicants attempt to revisit merits, factual findings, or re-evaluate evidence was impermissible; the application for rectification was therefore held not maintainable and dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking rectification of an order by the Tribunal. Initially, a reference application was filed before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Subsequently, an application under Section 129B(2) of the Act was filed before the Tribunal for rectification of purported mistakes in the order. The Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent from the record necessitating rectification.

The applicant contended that the Tribunal erred in analyzing the factual position and failed to consider relevant materials, contrary to the decision of the Apex Court. The Tribunal addressed various submissions regarding alleged errors, including re-examination of evidence, filing of affidavits, the effect of seizure by the Police, evidentiary value of statements, and absence of markings indicating foreign origin of goods.

The Tribunal, in its order, considered the submissions made by the applicant and concluded that the points raised were taken into account in the order. It highlighted the distinction in facts from cited case laws and emphasized the appreciation of evidence that led to the final conclusion. The Tribunal also referred to a case where the presumption under Section 123 of the Customs Act was held not applicable when the seizure was made by the Police.

Section 129B(2) of the Act deals with rectifying mistakes apparent from the record. The judgment elaborates on the meaning of "mistake" and "apparent," emphasizing that rectification is permissible only for errors that are patent and obvious, not requiring elaborate arguments for discovery. It distinguishes between rectifiable mistakes and those requiring revision or review of the order.

The judgment clarifies that rectification under Section 129B(2) does not extend to substituting the original order with a new one. It cites legal precedents to explain the scope of rectifiable mistakes and emphasizes that decisions on debatable legal points or factual disputes do not qualify as mistakes apparent from the record. The judgment underscores the subjective nature of identifying mistakes and the need for clarity and visibility in the error.

The Court dismissed the application, stating that the Tribunal's findings were factual and did not raise any question of law. It emphasized that the rectification sought was linked to the merits of the controversy, which had been finalized by the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the application was deemed not maintainable and was subsequently dismissed.

---