Rectification jurisdiction is limited to apparent errors on the record; it cannot reopen decided customs classification and misdeclaration issues.

Rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act is confined to an obvious mistake apparent from the record and cannot be used for rehearing or re-argument. The Tribunal held that the earlier order had already considered the essential facts and legal issues, including misdeclaration, value under-valuation, and the nature of the goods. The CTA classification point was not raised in the appeal memorandum, so it did not require a finding in the original order. As no manifest error was shown, the rectification application was held not maintainable and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the Tribunal disclosed any mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, including the contention that the Tribunal had failed to consider the CTA classification and the applicability of confiscation and penalty provisions.

Analysis: Rectification under the provision is confined to mistakes that are manifest from the record and do not require elaborate argument or a long drawn process of reasoning. The Tribunal had already considered and decided the essential factual and legal issues arising from the appeal, including the nature of the goods, misdeclaration of description and value, and under-valuation. The classification point was not raised as a ground in the appeal memorandum and therefore did not call for a finding in the earlier order. The rectification application sought, in substance, a rehearing on matters already decided or not raised, which is outside the scope of rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was shown, and the rectification application was not maintainable. The application was rejected.

---