1998 (11) TMI 209

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lt of earlier miscellaneous application filed on 30-6-1998 for consideration before the third Member who was to hear the differences of opinion between the original two Members on the questions formulated by the Original Bench. The basis of the said Miscellaneous Application filed on 30-6-1998 was inter alia the submission of the appellant that the direction of the learned Members was to cut the tyres into two pieces before clearance for home consumption was an error apparent on the face of the record in view of the following :- (i) It is stated that it is the condition in which the goods are imported that determines : (a) the importability under the import policy; (b) the classification; and (c) the rate of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;Therefore, it is prayed by the appellant that the order relating to cutting/mutilation of tyres strikes at the root of the order directing classification of goods under Heading 4011.99 of CETA, and hence such an order cannot be co-exist with; (a) The order upholding violation of ITC provision, confiscation and penalty, (b) With the order upholding classification of goods in question under Heading 4011.99 of CETA as unanimously upheld by both the Members. Therefore, they prayed that the order with regard to cutting/mutilation of tyres has got embodied or introduced in the order through inadvertance or misprision, and such direction is unsustainable in view of certain judgments noted by them. 4. We have heard Shri ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and Export Policy. The policy regulates regarding mutilation of goods in case of violation of licence. Hence such an order cannot be reviewed through this application. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made in this application and also after going through the final order we are of the considered opinion there is no mistake apparent on record calling for rectification of any mistakes. The prayer made by the applicants for change of classification is a new ground which was not raised at the time of the assessment of the goods before the authorities or before the Tribunal and their prayer in the application to uphold to classification under Heading 4004.00 is beyond the scope of an ROM application and the final order can....