Mistake apparent from record requires an obvious error; a debatable challenge to Customs penalty could not justify rectification.

Rectification under the Customs Act could not be used to reopen a penalty order on a debatable point of law. The Tribunal held that the objection to levy of penalty was not an obvious or patent mistake apparent from the record, because it required long-drawn reasoning on whether penalty under Section 112(a) could survive without confiscation under Section 111. As the alleged error was only arguable, the earlier order sustaining the penalty was left undisturbed and the rectification request failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order upholding penalty under the Customs Act, 1962 suffered from any mistake apparent from the record so as to warrant rectification, and whether the penalty could be reopened on the ground that confiscation had not been ordered under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the objection raised against levy of penalty was an arguable one and not an obvious or patent error. Relying on the principle that a mistake apparent from the record must be self-evident and not one requiring long-drawn reasoning on a debatable point of law, it found no error in the earlier order sustaining penalty to the extent of Rs. 10,000. The contention that penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could not survive in the absence of confiscation was treated as a matter for debate, not rectification.

Conclusion: No mistake apparent from the record was made out, and the request for rectification was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order remained undisturbed, and the rectification application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is not available for correcting a debatable legal issue; only an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record can be corrected.

---