Correction of errors

2021 YLRN 5 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Correction of errorsScope

Petitioner assailed notification issued by University whereby the previous notification, wherein petitioner was shown as gold medalist, was withdrawn

Validity

Respondent, in the paper of Geography had obtained 82 marks which was mistakenly and inadvertently valued as (2.8) instead of actual value (3.8)

Matter was later on clarified by the University and after correction in the record respondent had secured 3.8 CGPA and his total grade points became 521.5 GPA, which definitely exceeded the grade points of the petitioner

Moreso, in the previous notification it was clearly mentioned that errors and omissions, if any, were subject to subsequent rectification

Impugned notification was quite correct and called for no interference by the High Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2021 PTD 449 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.80, 179 & 206Correction of errorsPrincipleAdjudication orderRevising of findings

Importer was aggrieved of 'Audit Observation / Contravention' report made by authorities regarding goods in question after the same had been cleared under S.80 of Customs Act, 1969

Plea raised by importer was that the authorities adding a new para in Original Adjudicating order and reversed original findings on the plea of 'clerical mistake'

Validity

Authorities were only empowered under S.206 of Customs Act, 1969, to correct any 'clerical or arithmetical error' but Additional Collector reversed the conclusion and findings of original Adjudication Order and added a fresh new para into operative part under the garb of S.206 of Customs Act, 1969, as 'clerical omission'

Such action of authorities did not fall under umbrella of bona fide error for issuance of 'corrigendum' of S.206 of Customs Act, 1969

Second Order-in-Original passed by authorities was illegal, without lawful authority and jurisdiction

Adjudicating Officer, under S.179 of Customs Act, 1969, became 'functus officio' once he / she had passed any order, therefore, could not change verdict / conclusion of his / her own order

Mere naked eye inspection of photo images after clearance of goods, could not be made basis to determine PCT Heading of goods imported, which were made of different design / different material / yarn

In presence of SAFTA Certificate and assessment finalized by appropriate Assessing Officer under S.80 of Customs Act, 1969, and also keeping in view the practice of assessment of goods in question, there was no substance in 'Audit Observation / Contravention' report of authorities, as the same was based on presumption after clearance of goods

Customs Appellate Tribunal set aside revised assessment orders passed by authorities after clearance of goods, as the same were passed in arbitrary and capricious manner

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2013 CLD 912 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 27Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152Finality of judgmentArithmetical mistakesCorrection of errorsSpecial and general lawScope

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which is a special statute had provided a parallel provision to obtain remedy as claimed which excludes application of general principle of law i.e. S.152, C.P.C.

Provision of S.152, C.P.C. deals with clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders arise therein from accidental slip or omission whereas proviso to S.27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, deals with only clerical or typographical mistakes in judgment

Arithmetical mistake is considered to be mistake of calculation; clerical mistake is mistake in writing or typing whereas error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is error due to careless mistake of Court

Legislature's intent is very visible and clear while incorporating provision of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and only includes clerical and typographical mistakes.