NIAZ MUHAMMAD VS DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, FBR, QUETTA, 2015 PTD-CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE 687 (2014)

(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.194-B(2)---Orders of Appellate Tribunal---Application for rectification of order on the ground of error of excess assumption of jurisdiction---Validity---Remedy of review was not provided in Customs Act, 1969, therefore, after signing the judgment/order and announcing the same that could not be re-opened through a rectification application---Judgment could not be re-opened---Judgment signed and announced could not be declared annulled, set-aside or modified by means of rectification under S.194-B(2) of the Customs Act, 1969---Application being without any substance was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.

2003 CLC 1189 and Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1981 SC 94 rel.

(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S.194-B(2)---Rectification of order of Appellate Tribunal---Scope---Rectification meant "to make a correction, rectification was confined to exercise the powers to correct only the clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment/order which had occurred due to accidental slip or omission---Definition of "rectification" could not be stretched nor its scope could be widened to an extent thereby defeating the manifest intent of the legislature---Once court/judge signs and pronounce judgment, the court ceases to exercise jurisdiction in the matter having become functus officio.

2003 CLC 1189 rel.

(c) Review---

----Scope---When a judgment is signed and announced, the aggrieved party may assail such order/judgment before the higher courts in appeal/revision or may file a review application in the same court, if the remedy of review had been provided in such statute because right of review is a substantive right and is always a creation of the relevant statute on the subject.

(d) Review---

----Scope---Review is proceedings which exist by virtue of statute; it is in the nature of new trial of the issue, previously tried between the parties and cause of action being brought into court again for trial by a new petition.

Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1981 SC 94 rel.

Sadbar Jan for Appellant.

None for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th August, 2014.

ORDER

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, CHAIRMAN---Learned counsel for the appellant has filed this application for rectification of Order dated 5-4-2013 and prayed as follows:--

It is, therefore, to respectfully pray that the error of excess assumption of jurisdiction may kindly be rectified at the earliest, preferably within a month, so as to enable the applicant to consider the taking of further legal recourse.

2.This Tribunal has minutely perused the contents of this application for rectification.

3.Rectification shall means to make a correction, rectification confines itself to exercise the powers to correct only the clerical or arithmetical mistake in such judgment/order which have occurred due to accidental slip or omission. The definition of rectification cannot be stretched nor its scope can be widened to an extent thereby defeating the manifest intent of the legislature. Once court/judge signs and pronounce judgment. Thereafter the court ceases to exercise jurisdiction in the same matter as he become functus officio. (Relied on 2003 CLC 1189)

4.When a judgment is signed and announced, the aggrieved party may assail the impugned order/judgment before the higher Courts in appeal/revision or may file a review application in the same court, if the remedy of review has been provided in such statute because right of review is a substantive right and is always a creation of the relevant statute on the subject.

5.A review is proceedings which exist by virtue of statute. It is in the nature of new trial of the issue, previously tried between the parties. The cause of action being brought into court again for trial by a new petition. (Relied on law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafi reported as PLD 1981 SC 94)

6.Except the above remedies a previous judgment could not be re-opened. In Customs Act, 1969, the remedy of the review has not been provided, therefore, after signing the judgment/order and announcing it, the same could not be re-opened through a rectification application.

7.The nutshell of the above discussion is that a judgment signed and announced could not be declared annulled, set aside or modified by means of an application for rectification under section 194(B) of the Customs Act, 1969. The application in hand is without any substances. Same is dismissed.

CMA/96/Tax(Trib.)Application dismissed.