https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122940 Rectification was refused because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the prior final order. The Tribunal held that the challenge to acceptance of a SAPTA certificate of origin depended on reappreciation of evidence, not correction of an obvious error, and treated governmental correspondence suggesting misuse, together with the factual record, as more persuasive than the certificate. On valuation, it found that the earlier order had already considered the objection based on Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, so no manifest error existed. The final order therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:44:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122940 Rectification was refused because no mistake apparent on the face of the record was shown in the prior final order. The Tribunal held that the challenge to acceptance of a SAPTA certificate of origin depended on reappreciation of evidence, not correction of an obvious error, and treated governmental correspondence suggesting misuse, together with the factual record, as more persuasive than the certificate. On valuation, it found that the earlier order had already considered the objection based on Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, so no manifest error existed. The final order therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122940