Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1329 - AT - CustomsRectification of Mistake - typographical error - error apparent from the face of record - collection of duty, fine and penalty in respect of undeclared goods have also been set aside in Final Order - HELD THAT - As far as the corrigendum dated 28.09.2016, the same appears to be an inadvertent error on the part of the Department and the same, thus, stands corrected as per prayer made to be issued by Additional Commissioner of Customs in place of Commissioner of Customs. Issue regarding collection of duty, fine and penalty in respect of undeclared goods have also been set aside in the said Final Order inadvertently by the Tribunal - HELD THAT - This is an apparent error on the part of the Tribunal and is rectifiable mistake under the provisions of Section 129 B(2) of the Customs Act. We, therefore, modify our order to the extent that setting aside the order in respect of undeclared cargo is error apparent and the same stands deleted from the portion of the order dated 17.06.2019 - We modify the concluding paragraph of order to be read as in respect of the undeclared Cargo the Department will be well within its right to deal with the matter and adjudicate the case pertaining to undeclared goods and to collect applicable customs duty and fine and penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. ROM allowed.
Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) under Section 129B (2) of Customs Act, 1962 in Final Order No. C/A/50777/2019-CU (DB) dated 17.06.2019. Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, comprising HON’BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) and HON’BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL), addressed a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue seeking Rectification of Mistake (ROM) under Section 129B (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The ROM sought to amend the Final Order dated 17.06.2019, specifically focusing on setting aside the Order-in-Original related to undeclared cargo found in a container. The Revenue requested to collect the applicable customs duty, penalty, and fine for the undeclared goods. Additionally, the application highlighted an error in a corrigendum dated 28.09.2016, where the Additional Commissioner, ICD Tughlakabad was incorrectly referred to as the Commissioner of Customs. Upon hearing the parties and examining the ROM Application, the Tribunal acknowledged the inadvertent error in the corrigendum dated 28.09.2016, where the Additional Commissioner of Customs was mistakenly referred to as the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal recognized this error and corrected it as per the prayer made by the Revenue. Furthermore, the Tribunal identified an error in its Final Order dated 17.06.2019, where the issue of collecting duty, fine, and penalty for undeclared goods was inadvertently set aside. The Tribunal deemed this as an apparent error and rectifiable under Section 129 B(2) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal modified its order to rectify the error regarding setting aside the order concerning undeclared cargo. The Tribunal deleted the portion of the order dated 17.06.2019 related to undeclared goods. The concluding paragraph of the order was amended to clarify that the Department has the authority to deal with the matter, adjudicate the case concerning undeclared goods, and collect the applicable customs duty, fine, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. Ultimately, the ROM was allowed in the specified terms, with the order pronounced in open court on 09.01.2020.
|