1990 (8) TMI 285 - AT - Customs

Tribunal denies review, upholds order on unauthorized import of Alkyl Benzene.

The Tribunal rejected the application for review and rectification, emphasizing the lack of a mistake apparent on the record and the inapplicability of ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Review of order passed by the Tribunal based on a Special Bench decision, Rectification of error in the order, Application for reference to High Court, Distinction between licences obtained by fraud and fraudulently interpolated licences, Maintainability of application for rectification.Analysis:1. The applicants sought a review of the Tribunal's order based on a Special Bench decision. The applicants imported Alkyl Benzene under REP licences suspected to be unauthorized. The licensing authority confirmed the suspicion, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal confirmed the unauthorized import and upheld the penalties with minor modifications. The applicants then filed applications seeking reference to the High Court, arguing that the Tribunal erred in holding the import unauthorized. The Tribunal rejected these applications, citing factual distinctions from the Special Bench decision.2. The applicants' advocate initially sought a review of the order but later argued for rectification of error. He contended that the Tribunal erred by not following the Special Bench decision, which deemed even fraudulent licences valid until canceled. The advocate emphasized that the law laid down by the Special Bench should have been binding on the Tribunal. He also highlighted the Delhi High Court decision supporting his argument.3. The Departmental Representative opposed the application, stating that the Tribunal lacked the power to review and rectify orders. He argued that the Special Bench decision was not public before the Tribunal's order and that the factual distinctions were crucial. The Tribunal had already considered and rejected similar reference applications.4. The Tribunal analyzed the Special Bench decision and the facts of the present case. It emphasized the difference between licences obtained by fraud and fraudulently interpolated licences. The Tribunal rejected the argument that all licences, once issued, should be treated equally, emphasizing the fundamental distinction between the two types of licences.5. The Tribunal concluded that the Special Bench decision was not applicable to the present case due to factual variances. It emphasized that licences obtained by fraud and fraudulently interpolated licences could not be equated. The Tribunal rejected the application, stating that the arguments revolving around the Special Bench decision were not relevant once the decision's inapplicability was established.6. A separate member of the Tribunal concurred with the rejection of the application, highlighting the legal provisions governing rectification of orders. The member clarified that the Tribunal could not review its findings unless a mistake apparent from the record existed. Since the applicants had already exhausted the reference application under Sec. 130 of the Customs Act, the present application for rectification was deemed not maintainable.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for review and rectification, emphasizing the lack of a mistake apparent on the record and the inapplicability of the Special Bench decision to the present case. The Tribunal upheld its original order regarding the unauthorized import of Alkyl Benzene under suspicious licences.