Tribunal Upheld in Dismissing Petition on Pre-Deposit Requirement

The petition challenging the Tribunal's modification of its earlier order directing pre-deposit of duty amount was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement was upheld as falling within its power to rectify mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Act. The Court clarified that the Tribunal can modify its order but cannot review it, emphasizing the distinction between rectification of mistakes and review. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed justified, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issue involves the Tribunal's modification of its earlier order directing pre-deposit of duty amount, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review its own order, and whether the impugned order falls under the limited power of the Tribunal to rectify mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Act.

Tribunal's Jurisdiction to Review Order:
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal's modification of its earlier order amounted to a review, which the Tribunal does not have inherent powers to do. Citing relevant judgments, including one by the Apex Court, it was argued that the power to review is not inherent unless expressly granted by the statute, and the Tribunal only has a limited power to rectify mistakes under Section 35C(2).

Nature of Tribunal's Power:
The Apex Court clarified that the power to rectify a mistake is distinct from the power of review, with the latter being wider. While Section 35C(2) grants limited powers to rectify orders based on mistakes apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal can modify its order but cannot review it. The Tribunal's power to rectify mistakes includes the ability to consider the sufficiency of material justifying a demand raised.

Application to the Case:
In this case, the Tribunal's order dated 17-1-2003 indicated that the appellants did not wish to redeem the confiscated goods, thus not creating a liability to pay customs duty under the Customs Act. As there was no liability created by the statute, the Tribunal could rectify its order under Section 35C(2) to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement. Consequently, the impugned order was justified under Section 35C(2), and there was no reason to interfere with it.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the Tribunal's decision to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement was found to be within its power to rectify mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Act.

---