COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. RANUTROL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 111 -112/2000 -B dated 11.3.2002.

(2.) Shri A. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that in Para 3 of the Final Order, it has been recorded by the Tribunal that the learned Advocate for the Appellants also mentioned that even the Customs Department had clarified to them on inquiry that the impugned goods are classifiable under Heading 76.15; that Director General of Foreign Trade had also classified the impugned product under the said Heading. He, further, mentioned that this recording is an error as the Customs Department and DGFT had clarified to the Appellants' query that the impugned goods were classifiable under Heading 94.06 which is apparent from DGFTs' Letter dated 9.4.99 and Commissioner of Customs New Delhi's letter dated 7.1.99. We also heard Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative.

(3.) It is seen from the letter dated 9.4.99 of DGFT and letter dated 7.1.99 of Customs Department that the said officers had clarified that item 'Shower Cabin' were classifiable under Heading 94.06. In view of this, the sentence commencing with "He also mentioned" and ending with "the said Heading" in para 3 of the Final Order Nos. 111 -112/2002 -B dated 11.3.2002 will be read as under: