TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Authorities have apprehended some of the persons found involved in smuggling activities and as a sequel thereof, search of the house of the respondent herein was also made resulting in the seizure of goods of foreign origin valued in all Rs. 1,31,587.50 in the shape of following items of goods :- 1. SANYO Radio Cassette Tape Recorders M 6400 H (made in Japan) ... 36 Nos. 2. MECCA Car Stereo Cassette Tape Players ... 20 Nos. 3. OCEAN Stereo Car Cassette Tape Players ... 54 Nos. 4. Car Cassette Speakers ... 45 pairs 5. Textiles (Pant Pieces) ... 16.75 Metres The respondent could not produce any Customs paid receipts, import licence or any bill or voucher to prove his lawful possession of the goods of the foreign origin and therefore the seizure was effected under a mahazar on the reasonable belief that the goods were imported illicitly into India from foreign country without payment of duty and without the requisite I.T.C. Licence. Statements were also said to have been recorded and thereafter adjudication proceedings were initiated by the Additional Coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing terms :- "Wheras in the said proceedings, Shri Samudram, son of Shri Thangavel Nadar, No. 38, Melashanmughapuram, First Street, Tuticorin, had been made a party and show cause notice issued to him and his part in the entire transaction discussed in paragraphs 12 and 13 ibid. of the said order, due to accidental slip and omission the findings did not refer to his case. I accordingly order that the following may be added to the said order at the places indicated below as correction under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 : After para 16 add the following : "It is also obvious that Shri Samudram has taken active part in concealing the contraband goods in his own house and therefore, rendered himself liable to penal action". In para 18, under the heading "Order" after Sl. No. 7 relating to Mani, add the following : "8. Samudram ... Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred only)"." The effect of the above amendment made in the purported exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Act is to indict the respondent also and impose a penalty of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion. 6. Per contra, Mr. Akbar Ali Dhala, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, strenuously argued that the powers under Section 154 of the Act cannot be equated to the powers of the court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the reasons assigned by the Tribunal below to come to the conclusion that the omission or lapse committed by the Adjudicating Authority in its original order dated 30-10-1982 cannot be comprehended or could be said to be of the nature visualized for correction under Section 154 of the Act and particularly within the scope of the latter provision " ..... or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission ....." and therefore the well- merited conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal does not call for interference by taking a different view. The learned Counsel also contended that the omission in the original order of adjudication dated 30-10-1982 to record any finding indicting the respondent or finding him guilty or imposing any penalty will amount to a total non-application of mind and not merely an error capable of being corrected or rectified in exercise of the powers under Sec. 154 of the Act. 7. Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either on its own motion or on an application by any of the parties. Emphasis has also been made by the Apex Court that it is manifest from the specific provision contained therein that errors arising from an accidental slip can also be corrected subsequently not only in a decree drawn up by a ministerial officer of the court, but even in a judgment pronounce and signed by the court. The same view has been taken after adverting to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision by a learned single Judge of this Court in a decision reported in Periasami Gounder v. Ramasami Gounder and Others (1981 T.L.N.J. 127). The learned single Judge while dealing with this issue, has observed as hereunder :- "To promote justice and to maintain serenity in the court records, I propose to approach from a different angle. Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code, enable the court to vary its judgment so as to give effect to its meaning and intention. If any authority is needed the same is found in Samarendra Nath Sinha and Another v. Krishna Kumar Nag [1967 (2) S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he judgment or order, which resulted from any accidental slip or omission before, could be invoked in a given case. it must in the process be endeavoured to find out what really the learned Judge or the Authority which committed the error which is sought to be rectified intended while passing the Judgment order in question. The power of correction has been held in those decisions to be available in order to effect a correction to a judgment or order to bring the same with the real intention, as is explicit from the judgment or order of the Judge or the authority concerned. 12. In Kuruvilla v. State Bank of Travancore (A.I.R. 1989, Kerala 68), a learned single Judge has indicated the test for identifying an accidental slip or omission as contemplated under Section 152. It was observed therein by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court that a convenient and general test that can be applied to determine whether the correction sought for is in the field of accidental slip or omission or not, is to examine whether the judgment as it stands represents the intention of the Judge at the time he made it and if it does, then a mistake in it cannot be treated as an accidenta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame came to be rectified by issuing of an addendum to the earlier order by passing the subsequent order dated 23-9-1983. The proceedings dated 23-9-1983, in our view, is well within the scope of powers conferred under Section 154 of the Act and the view taken by the Tribunal below to the contra does not accord well with the scope and purport as also the object of the Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal, in our view, has proceeded in a superficial manner and the construction placed by the Tribunal on the scope of Section 154 of the Act, if agreed to, would result in mutilating a portion of the provision and defeating the very object of such a provision. The further view taken by the Tribunal is that the omission in this case cannot be said to be a mere error, which could be said to be patent on the order. A perusal of the order and the records pertaining thereto does not in our view, warrant or justify the said view taken by the Tribunal. In our view, the order even on a cursory perusal, would go to show that though the adjudication proceedings have been initiated against about 8 persons including the respondent and notices have been served on the respondent also, there is no concr....