Rectification for apparent record errors permits correction of duty computation, but not reopening of merits or disputed contentions.

Rectification under the Customs Act is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen merits. The Tribunal treated acknowledged duty-computation errors, including wrongly added additional duty and incorrect duty rates in certain Bills of Entry, as apparent errors because they affected the quantified demand; the duty computation was modified to that limited extent and the matter was remanded for fresh re-determination. Other grounds, including alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and the claim that there was no admission by the appellant, were rejected because they were already dealt with or lay outside rectification jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the apparent computation errors in the re-determined customs duty, as acknowledged in the departmental chart, warranted rectification of the final order; (ii) Whether the remaining grounds concerning alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and absence of admission by the appellant fell within the scope of rectification.

Issue (i): Whether the apparent computation errors in the re-determined customs duty, as acknowledged in the departmental chart, warranted rectification of the final order.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that, in respect of certain Bills of Entry, additional duty had been wrongly added or the rate of duty had been incorrectly mentioned while redetermining the demand. Since these mistakes were acknowledged on record and affected the quantum of duty, they constituted errors apparent on record within the rectificatory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The duty computation required modification to the limited extent of the acknowledged errors, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh re-determination on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining grounds concerning alleged non-consideration of appeal contentions and absence of admission by the appellant fell within the scope of rectification.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the other grounds raised in the application had already been dealt with in the impugned final order. The plea that there was no admission by the appellant was held to be outside the permissible scope of a rectification application, which is confined to mistakes apparent on record.

Conclusion: No rectification was granted on those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed only to the limited extent of correcting the acknowledged duty-calculation errors, and the remaining objections were rejected; the matter was sent back for fresh quantification on the specified basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to mistakes apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen issues requiring argument or reconsideration of merits.

---