Corrigendum-based duty enhancement and prima facie penalty relief turn on notice validity, limitation, and knowledge-based culpability.

A corrigendum enhancing a customs duty demand was treated as a recalculation flowing from rate changes and not as altering the foundation of the show-cause notice, so the prima facie limitation objection failed. The record also noted that the notice was issued within one year of debonding, a general B-17 bond had been executed, and duty was payable once pointed out. On penalties, the material did not then show that the appellants had prior knowledge of the suppliers' deemed-export status, and the prima facie basis for penal action was not established. Duty and interest were directed to be deposited, while the penalty amounts were kept in abeyance.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the corrigendum enhancing the duty demand changed the basis of the show-cause notice or was vitiated by limitation, and whether the demand was barred by time; (ii) whether penalties were warranted on the facts, including the appellants' knowledge of the suppliers' deemed-export status.

Issue (i): whether the corrigendum enhancing the duty demand changed the basis of the show-cause notice or was vitiated by limitation, and whether the demand was barred by time

Analysis: The demand arose from the treatment of supplies received under paragraph 8.3(a) and (b) of the Foreign Trade Policy as imported goods after the amendment to the notification. The corrigendum was found to be only a recalculation of duty consequent upon the applicable rate changes and did not alter the foundation of the notice. The order also noted that the notice was issued within one year of debonding, that a general B-17 bond had been executed, and that the duty liability was to be discharged on being pointed out. On that basis, the plea of limitation was not accepted at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was not treated as changing the basis of the notice, and the time-bar objection was rejected prima facie against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether penalties were warranted on the facts, including the appellants' knowledge of the suppliers' deemed-export status

Analysis: The record showed that the differential duty had already been paid and that the appellants had not, on the material then available, shown prior knowledge that the suppliers were availing deemed-export benefits. In those circumstances, the material did not support a prima facie case for imposition of penalties under the penal provisions invoked.

Conclusion: Penalties were stayed prima facie in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were directed to deposit the duty and interest, while the remaining penalty amounts were kept in abeyance pending disposal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrigendum that merely recalculates duty without altering the foundation of the notice does not invalidate the demand, and penalties require a prima facie basis showing the requisite knowledge or culpability.

---