Rectification jurisdiction bars reappreciation of evidence and review of concluded confiscation, presumption, and penalty findings.

Rectification under Section 129C(2) of the Customs Act is confined to manifest, self-evident errors apparent from the record and cannot operate as a review mechanism. The notes explain that objections concerning the statutory presumption for seized unmarked crude gold, confiscation, appreciation of evidence, precedential treatment and personal penalties require reconsideration of concluded factual or legal findings and therefore fall outside rectification jurisdiction. Binding Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court principles prevail over contrary coordinate-bench views without requiring a Larger Bench reference. Separately reasoned confiscation findings are not invalidated merely because personal penalties are set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged errors in the final order concerning the applicability of the statutory presumption for seized gold, confiscation, evidentiary appreciation, non-consideration of precedents, and dropping of penalties constituted mistakes apparent from the record rectifiable under Section 129C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Rectification jurisdiction is confined to manifest, self-evident errors ascertainable without elaborate reasoning, debate, or re-appreciation of evidence. It cannot be exercised as a power of review to revisit findings on facts, legal application, confiscation, or the evidentiary basis of the original order. The objections raised sought reconsideration of conclusions already reached in the final order, including the application of Section 123 to unmarked crude gold seized on reasonable belief of smuggling. The binding principles declared by the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court prevailed over any contrary coordinate-bench view, and no Larger Bench reference was required. The precedents and grounds alleged to have been overlooked had either been considered or did not disclose a patent error. The setting aside of personal penalties did not invalidate the separately reasoned confiscation findings.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was established; the application sought an impermissible review of the final order.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen debatable factual or legal findings, re-appreciate evidence, or substitute a concluded decision; only a manifest error apparent from the record is rectifiable.

---