Full Judgment
3. Learned Consultant referred to the relevant paragraphs of the Final Order and submitted that it was a mistake to direct the goods to be redeemed on payment of fine to be determined by the adjudicating authority. When it was held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 258/90 and not liable to be penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act, there was no warrant for a remand to the departmental authorities at all. Learned SDR defended the Final Order and submitted that there was no "mistake apparent from the record" to be rectified under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act in this case. If aggrieved by the above order, the appellant should have taken recourse to the appellate remedy rather than this application.
4. We have carefully perused the Final Order and examined the submissions. In the Final Order under consideration, the Tribunal set side the absolute confiscation of the vehicle as also the penalty on the appellant. The vehicle was allowed to be redeemed against payment of appropriate fine. Obviously, "absolute confiscation" was substituted with "confiscation with option for redemption on payment of fine". The Consultant has found a "mistake" in this part of the Final Order and has argued that confiscation should have been set aside in absolute terms to enable the appellant to obtain unconditional release of the vehicle. We do not think that any "mistake" to be rectified under Section 129B(2) is involved in the order of confiscation with option for redemption. On the other hand, it is abundantly clear from the order itself that the order for release of the vehicle on payment of appropriate fine was made with conviction of mind inasmuch as the original authority was directed to determine the quantum of fine by taking into account all the relevant considerations. Such a limited remand of the case can only be seen as the outcome of a judgment based on a comprehensive consideration of the facts and evidence of the case as well as the relevant provisions of law. It appears from the text and tenor of the present application that the appellant wants to say that there is an error of judgment in the Final Order of this Tribunal. But any error of judgment can be rectified only by the appellate court, and not by this Tribunal under Section 129B(2).