Post-adjudication corrigendum and unsupported valuation certificate cannot sustain confiscation, penalty, or enhanced customs valuation.

A post-adjudication corrigendum that changed the EXIM Policy basis for confiscation and penalty was held invalid because it was a substantive alteration, not a clerical correction, and the customs authority had no review power after becoming functus officio; issuing it without notice also breached natural justice. The enhancement of value based solely on a Chartered Engineer's certificate was rejected because the certificate gave no reliable valuation method, did not identify item-wise values, and did not establish market price or depreciation basis. The confiscation, penalty, and enhanced valuation were set aside because the prescribed valuation sequence for rejecting transaction value was not properly followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a corrigendum issued after adjudication could validly substitute the original basis of confiscation and penalty by changing the relevant EXIM Policy paragraph, and (ii) whether the enhanced valuation based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate could be sustained.

Issue (i): whether a corrigendum issued after adjudication could validly substitute the original basis of confiscation and penalty by changing the relevant EXIM Policy paragraph.

Analysis: The corrigendum was issued after the adjudication order and after the appeal had been heard, and it introduced a different policy basis for restriction from the one originally applied. Such a substantive post-order change was not a mere clerical, arithmetical, or typographical correction. The authority had no power of review under the Customs Act, and once the adjudication order was signed it became functus officio. Issuing the corrigendum behind the assessee's back also violated the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The corrigendum was not sustainable, and the confiscation and penalty founded on that corrigendum could not stand.

Issue (ii): whether the enhanced valuation based on the Chartered Engineer's certificate could be sustained.

Analysis: The certificate did not disclose any reliable basis for the assessed value, did not set out the method of valuation, did not identify specific values for the imported items, and did not establish the market price or the basis of depreciation. Valuation could not be enhanced by relying solely on such a vague certificate, and the statutory sequence for rejection of transaction value and recourse to later valuation rules was not properly followed.

Conclusion: The enhancement of value was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation, penalty, and enhanced valuation was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive post-adjudication corrigendum that alters the basis of liability is invalid in the absence of review power and in breach of natural justice, and customs valuation cannot be sustained on an unreasoned chartered engineer's certificate without proper rejection of transaction value under the prescribed valuation framework.

---