https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85002 The Tribunal rectified its order as the assumption of confiscated goods for redemption was based on incorrect information, which was a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal clarified it lacked authority to grant compensation for disposed goods under the Customs Act, citing the Golden Hind Shipping case. The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal principles allowing rectification of orders in cases of mistakes of fact, emphasizing the power granted under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act to correct such errors within four years of the original order. en-us Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:17:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85002 The Tribunal rectified its order as the assumption of confiscated goods for redemption was based on incorrect information, which was a mistake apparent from the record. However, the Tribunal clarified it lacked authority to grant compensation for disposed goods under the Customs Act, citing the Golden Hind Shipping case. The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal principles allowing rectification of orders in cases of mistakes of fact, emphasizing the power granted under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act to correct such errors within four years of the original order. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 31 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85002