2022 (4) TMI 1656 - AT - Customs

Application for rectification of mistake - clerical or factual mistake - 30 appeals have been preferred but the chart that has been prepared gives details of only 24 appeals remaining six appeals were not heard - Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) under a Foreign Trade Policy - HELD THAT - Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Department has however pointed out that there may be a mistake in the chart that is contained in paragraph 1 of the order but all the 30 appeals were heard and disposed of on merits including the 6 appeals relating to DFIA licenses. The submission made by learned Authorized Representative is correct as is clear from the order. In this view of the matter the only mistake that needs to be rectified in paragraph 1 of the order is by addition of details of 6 more appeals. Thus in the chart contained in paragraph 1 of the order the following details of six appeals shall be added after serial no. 24. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter are:

- Whether there exists a clerical or factual mistake in the Final Order dated January 01, 2020, specifically in the chart contained in paragraph 1, which purportedly lists details of appeals disposed of.

- Whether all 30 appeals mentioned in the opening paragraph of the order were indeed heard and decided on merits, including the six appeals related to Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) licenses under the Foreign Trade Policy.

- The scope and correctness of rectification of an order under the relevant procedural provisions, particularly when the mistake is confined to omission of details in a chart but does not affect the adjudication on merits.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Existence and nature of mistake in the Final Order

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal's power to rectify mistakes in its orders is generally governed by procedural rules and principles allowing correction of clerical or apparent errors without reopening substantive adjudication. Such rectification is permissible when the mistake is evident on the face of the record and does not affect the merits of the case.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the opening paragraph of the Final Order stated that 30 appeals were preferred by various appellants, including importer-appellants, exporter appellants, and the Revenue. However, the chart immediately following this paragraph only detailed 24 appeals, omitting six appeals related to DFIA licenses. The Tribunal recognized this as a mistake confined to the chart and not affecting the substantive adjudication.

Key evidence and findings: The Authorized Representative for the Department confirmed that all 30 appeals, including the six DFIA-related appeals, were heard and disposed of on merits. The omission was thus identified as a clerical or drafting error in the chart rather than an omission of adjudication.

Application of law to facts: Given the nature of the mistake-a failure to include details of six appeals in the chart-the Tribunal held that rectification was appropriate to accurately reflect the appeals disposed of, aligning the chart with the opening paragraph and the adjudication on merits.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Applicant contended that the six appeals were not heard, while the Department clarified that they were heard. The Tribunal accepted the Department's submission, supported by the record, and rejected the notion that the appeals were omitted from hearing.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the only mistake requiring rectification was the omission of the six appeals' details in the chart in paragraph 1 of the order.

Issue 2: Inclusion of details of six DFIA-related appeals in the chart

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The rectification must be precise and limited to the correction of the identified mistake. The Tribunal's duty is to ensure that the order correctly reflects the adjudicative process and outcomes.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal proceeded to add the details of the six appeals after serial number 24 in the chart. This addition included appeal numbers, periods of dispute, show cause notice (SCN) details, amounts of customs duty and penalties under Sections 114A/114AA, the licenses utilized for import (all DFIA licenses), ports of import and export, and relevant remarks.

Key evidence and findings: The chart revealed specifics such as customs duty amounts ranging from approximately Rs. 11.68 lakhs to Rs. 66.07 lakhs, penalties of equal amounts under the relevant sections, and the fact that none of these appeals involved a Trade Related Aspects (TRA) issue. One appeal involved a penalty of Rs. 99.34 lakhs under Section 114AA related to submission of forged documents for DFIA licenses.

Application of law to facts: By incorporating the detailed chart entries for the six appeals, the Tribunal ensured the Final Order accurately reflected the scope of appeals considered and disposed of, thereby maintaining transparency and completeness of the adjudicative record.

Treatment of competing arguments: No contrary submissions were noted regarding the specific details of the six appeals. The rectification was unopposed once the Department's representative confirmed the hearing and disposal of all appeals.

Conclusion: The Tribunal ordered the addition of the six appeals' details in the chart, rectifying the clerical omission and disposing of the rectification application accordingly.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's key legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following:

"The submission made by learned Authorized Representative is correct as is clear from the order. In this view of the matter, the only mistake that needs to be rectified in paragraph 1 of the order is by addition of details of 6 more appeals."

Core principles established include:

- Rectification of orders is permissible to correct clerical or factual mistakes that do not affect the merits of adjudication.

- The Tribunal's record must accurately reflect all appeals heard and decided, ensuring transparency and completeness.

- Omission of details in a chart or summary paragraph, when the substantive adjudication has been conducted, constitutes a rectifiable error.

Final determinations on the issues were:

- The Final Order dated January 01, 2020, contained a clerical mistake by omitting details of six appeals in the chart in paragraph 1.

- All 30 appeals, including the six related to DFIA licenses, were heard and disposed of on merits.

- The rectification application was allowed to add the details of the six appeals in the chart, thereby correcting the order without affecting the substantive adjudication.