Rectification jurisdiction for provisional release conditions failed where no apparent error existed in SEZ goods directions.

Under Section 110A of the Customs Act, provisional release conditions for SEZ goods must balance revenue protection with the importer's interests. The Tribunal held that the earlier order already covered movement of goods to another SEZ unit or an EOU, provisional assessment on clearance to DTA or deemed export, and return or rollback of the bank guarantee for approved operations. It found no error apparent on the face of the record and treated the double-duty contention, at most, as a matter of clarification rather than rectification. The rectification application was therefore not maintainable and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the order fixing conditions for provisional release of SEZ goods, so as to warrant modification under rectification jurisdiction.

Analysis: The order had been passed under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which permits provisional release on conditions meant to balance revenue protection and the importer's interest. The Tribunal found that the earlier order already contemplated movement of goods from the SEZ warehouse to another SEZ unit or EOU, provisional assessment on clearance to DTA or deemed export, and return or rollback of the bank guarantee where goods were moved for approved operations. On that basis, it held that the impugned directions were comprehensive and did not suffer from any mistake apparent on the record. The further plea that the conditions could lead to double duty was treated as a matter, if necessary, for clarification of how the conditions would operate, not as a rectifiable error.

Conclusion: The rectification application was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

---