NARESH A SHAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant though a broker, the learned Appellate Tribunal considering the facts on record held that the Appellant was a conspirator and considering the provisions of sub-section (a) or (b) of Section 112 was liable for penalty and accordingly upheld the order of penalty which was imposed. The Appellant aggrieved preferred rectification application before the Tribunal which came to be disposed of by order dated 15th April, 2005. The learned Bench of the Tribunal held that the Application is clearly beyond the scope of an R.O.M.

(2.) The Appellant being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal and the order passed in rectification preferred an Appeal before this Court being Customs Appeal No. 39 of 2005. That Appeal was withdrawn. The Appellant made a statement that he would prefer a Review. The learned Bench whilst disposing off the matter observed, that if the Appellant moves application it will be for the Tribunal to consider it in accordance with law. The Appeal along with the order for rectification application was disposed of by order dated 15th December, 2005.

(3.) The Appellant thereafter preferred one more rectification application. It is the submission of the Counsel that the expression "review" in the order of this Court dated 15th December, 2005 was a typing error as no review is maintainable under the Act and what is maintainable is rectification application. That application was heard and the learned Tribunal by its order dated 22nd December, 2006 held that the same points which were raised in the first rectification application were also raised in the second application and consequently dismissed the same.