Tribunal dismisses Request for Rectification of Mistake application for lack of evidence and specificity.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, finding it frivolous and lacking substance. The applicant's grounds, including failure to refer to specific judgments, conflicting decisions, and overruling of a Larger Bench decision, were deemed unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted the lack of specificity and supporting evidence for the claims made, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the application. The applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence or specific references during the ROM application stage resulted in the Tribunal rejecting the application.

---

---

Issues:
Request for rectification of mistake apparent on the order citing various grounds including failure to refer to specific judgments, conflicting decisions, violation of statutory provisions, and overruling of Larger Bench decision.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought rectification of the order based on several grounds, including the failure to refer to specific judgments, conflicting decisions, and violation of statutory provisions. The applicant argued that the Tribunal did not mention two judgments cited during the appeal, leading to an error. However, the Tribunal found that the judgments were not cited during the appeal, contradicting the applicant's claim. Additionally, the grounds related to conflicting decisions and violation of statutory provisions lacked specificity, as no other orders were cited during the appeal except for one order considered by the Tribunal before the impugned order was passed.

2. The Tribunal addressed the grounds related to the Tourists Baggage Rules, 1978, and the Import Trade (Control) Policy for 1985-88, stating that the applicant failed to specify the particular provisions that were allegedly violated by the impugned order. Despite the applicant drawing attention to a specific paragraph in the impugned order, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the findings and conclusions therein. The lack of specificity in citing conflicting provisions weakened the applicant's argument in this regard.

3. Another ground raised by the applicant was the overruling of a decision of the Larger Bench. However, the applicant did not specify which decision of the Larger Bench was overruled by the impugned order. This lack of specificity undermined the applicant's claim regarding the overruling of the Larger Bench decision, as no specific decision was cited during the proceedings.

4. The Tribunal further observed that the application lacked a basis for one of the grounds raised by the applicant. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant failed to provide copies of certain orders mentioned in the appeal papers, indicating a lack of supporting evidence for the claims made. This observation raised doubts about the validity of the grounds raised by the applicant in the appeal.

5. During the hearing of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, the applicant submitted photocopies of certain judgments. However, the Tribunal clarified that the scope of the ROM application is limited to mistakes apparent on the record of the Tribunal's order and does not involve re-hearing the appeal. Since the judgments were not cited during the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal could not consider them at the ROM application stage.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the ROM application to be frivolous and lacking substance. The Tribunal dismissed the application based on the lack of merit in the grounds raised by the applicant and the failure to provide sufficient evidence or specific references to support the claims made in the application.

---