Rectification cannot reopen disputed evidence, and Single Member Bench jurisdiction depends on the relief actually challenged.

Rectification under a miscellaneous application is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen disputed questions of evidence or seek review of the merits; on that basis, no rectifiable mistake was shown. Jurisdiction under section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 depended on the relief actually in challenge: although the confiscated goods exceeded the monetary limit, the absolute confiscation was not appealed and the only disputed issue was a personal penalty below the threshold. The Single Member Bench was therefore competent to hear the matter, and the jurisdictional objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order suffered from any mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant rectification under the miscellaneous application. (ii) Whether the appeal was beyond the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench under section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the order suffered from any mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant rectification under the miscellaneous application.

Analysis: The points raised in the application related to appreciation of evidence, including the existence of a person said to have handed over the briefcase, the veracity of panch witnesses, and the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Such matters required reconsideration of the merits and could not be treated as an obvious error on the record. Rectification cannot be used as a substitute for review.

Conclusion: No rectifiable mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the application failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was beyond the jurisdiction of the Single Member Bench under section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Although the value of the confiscated goods exceeded Rs. 10 lakh, the gold had been absolutely confiscated and the applicant had not challenged that part of the order. The challenge before the Tribunal was confined to the personal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh, which was below the jurisdictional limit relied upon for the objection. On that basis, the matter was correctly heard by a Single Member Bench.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the Single Member Bench was held to be competent.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was dismissed after holding that no error apparent on the record existed and that the Single Member Bench had jurisdiction to decide the matter.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen disputed issues of fact or evidence, and the forum's jurisdiction is determined by the relief actually in challenge.

---