Rectification jurisdiction permits correction of obvious record errors, but not substantive recomputation of anti-dumping duty.

Rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record and may be used to correct an undisputed factual description, such as the shipper and beneficial owner named in an earlier order. It cannot be used to resolve a debatable issue or to undertake substantive recomputation of anti-dumping duty, as that would exceed rectification jurisdiction. On that basis, the factual typographical errors were corrected, while the request for recomputation of duty was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the typographical errors regarding the shipper and beneficial owner in the earlier final order could be rectified; (ii) Whether recomputation of anti-dumping duty could be undertaken in rectification proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the typographical errors regarding the shipper and beneficial owner in the earlier final order could be rectified.

Analysis: The record showed no dispute that M/s. Xinjiang Zhongtai Chemical Co. Ltd. was the shipper and M/s. Vesak Singapore PTE Ltd. was the beneficial owner. The earlier narration in the final order was therefore corrected in the corresponding paragraph. The rectification was confined to correcting the factual description already borne out by the documents.

Conclusion: The typographical errors were rectified in favour of the department.

Issue (ii): Whether recomputation of anti-dumping duty could be undertaken in rectification proceedings.

Analysis: The scope of rectification was held to be limited to mistakes apparent from the record. A debatable question, or one requiring a process of reasoning and possible competing views, does not amount to such an error. On that footing, the request to recalculate the anti-dumping duty was treated as beyond rectification jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Recomputation of anti-dumping duty was refused.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed only to the extent of correcting the factual description in the earlier order, while the prayer for recomputation of anti-dumping duty was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to obvious mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used to decide a debatable issue or to undertake substantive recomputation.

---