https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108995 Rectification under customs valuation law was held unavailable where the alleged omissions concerned issues already considered and rejected in the earlier order. Non-consideration of clauses (b) and (d) of the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was not a mistake apparent from the record because the department was effectively seeking to introduce a new case not raised in the notice or the Commissioner's order. Documents not specifically relied upon in the notice and not properly brought on record were treated as additional evidence requiring a formal application; absent that, no apparent error arose. The rectification applications were therefore rejected as attempts to reopen the merits. en-us Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:25:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108995 Rectification under customs valuation law was held unavailable where the alleged omissions concerned issues already considered and rejected in the earlier order. Non-consideration of clauses (b) and (d) of the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 was not a mistake apparent from the record because the department was effectively seeking to introduce a new case not raised in the notice or the Commissioner's order. Documents not specifically relied upon in the notice and not properly brought on record were treated as additional evidence requiring a formal application; absent that, no apparent error arose. The rectification applications were therefore rejected as attempts to reopen the merits. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108995