BOMBAY BANGALORE FREIGHT CARRIER Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications, filed by M/s. Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Ltd. and Shri Ashwani Kumar, for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order Nos. A/492 -493/2001 -NB, dated 12 -6 -2001.

(2.) SHRI H.K. Sharma, learned Advocate, submitted that penalties under Customs Act has been imposed on both the applicants as the Ball Bearings of foreign origin were found in their godown; that the Tribunal while passing the Final Order in question has not considered the submissions made by them in their memorandum of appeal; that Ball Bearing being not notified goods, there was no onus upon the applicants to have adduced documentary evidence as to lawful import of the impugned goods; that the applicant No. 1 is a transport company and the applicant No. 2 is its Manager; that they were not under any obligation to verify or to find out the identity of the consignors; that it can also not be presumed that they had knowledge of contents of the packet; that the packets were found lying in the sealed condition in their go -down premises; that they are discharging their contractual duty as a common carrier. The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that he had submitted written synopsis also to the Bench after the matter was heard; that none of contention and the case law cited by him in the said synopsis had not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the Final Order; that as such there is an apparent mistake on the face of the record in not considering any of the pleas raised by the applicants.

(3.) OPPOSING the prayer Shri U. Raja Ram, learned SDR, submitted that no specific mistake has been mentioned by the applicants in the application; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U. Ltd. - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.); that a "mistake apparent on the face of the record" must be obvious and patent mistake; that mistake apparent from the record cannot be something which would have to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. He, further, submitted that the Tribunal has passed the Final Order in question after considering the pleas raised by the learned Advocate at the time of hearing and as such there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record.