1989 (12) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Tribunal denies modification request for reshipment of goods, emphasizes original order consistency.

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' request for modification of the order seeking reshipment of goods without re-export conditions, instead of payment ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of mistake or modification of Bench order regarding reshipment of goods and payment of fine.Analysis:The applicants filed an appeal against the order of confiscation of imported goods, seeking reshipment instead of payment of fines. The Tribunal accepted the plea for reshipment but later, the suppliers refused to take back the goods. The applicants sought modification of the order to clear the goods without re-export conditions. The advocate argued for restoration of the original order, citing the refusal by suppliers as a change in circumstances. He relied on legal precedents to support the Tribunal's power to rectify mistakes. The respondents opposed the application, stating the Tribunal lacked the power to review the order.The Tribunal examined the statutory provisions governing its powers. Section 129-B(2) allows rectification of mistakes apparent from the record within four years. However, Section 130 and 130-E limit the Tribunal's authority, making its orders final unless specified otherwise. The advocate argued for broad inherent powers of the Tribunal akin to Civil Courts, citing legal cases. The Tribunal differentiated cases where errors were evident on record from the present situation where no such error existed.The Tribunal emphasized that the applicants had consistently sought reshipment, indicating no error in the original order. The refusal by suppliers post-order did not constitute a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence suggesting the suppliers' unwillingness at the time of the original order. The Tribunal also highlighted that the order's ineffectiveness was due to subsequent developments, not an error in the Tribunal's decision-making process. The Tribunal concluded that the modification sought by the applicants would amount to a review of the original order, which was impermissible.In the absence of statutory provisions allowing for the requested modification and considering the lack of error apparent on record, the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous application. The Tribunal emphasized that the circumstances did not warrant a revision of the original order and that the Tribunal's powers were limited by the statutory framework, precluding the requested modification.