Rectification under Customs Act cannot rely on later judgment; subsequent decision is not a mistake apparent from the record.

Rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review. A subsequent High Court decision, delivered after the original Tribunal order, did not amount to an error existing in the record when that order was passed. A second rectification application against the same order was also held not maintainable. The Tribunal therefore rejected the rectification request and left the original penalty-related findings undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second rectification application was maintainable on the basis of a subsequent High Court decision, and whether such later decision could be treated as a mistake apparent from the record.

Analysis: The earlier Tribunal order preceded the High Court decision relied upon by the applicant. The later decision could not, therefore, be treated as an error existing in the record when the order was passed. The governing principle applied was that rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and cannot be used as a substitute for review. The Tribunal also noted that a second rectification application against the same order was not maintainable.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order affirmed the original decision and left the penalty-related findings undisturbed, while denying relief through rectification.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent judicial decision does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a second rectification application against the same order is not maintainable.

---