Fresh allegations by corrigendum cannot be added after hearing closes; pre-amendment customs notice rules remain controlling.

A corrigendum could not introduce fresh allegations or additional evidence after the adjudication hearing had concluded and the matter was reserved for orders; it was not a mere clerical correction and had to be ignored. The later supplementary-notice regime under Section 28(7A) of the Customs Act and Regulation 4(d) of the 2019 Regulations did not apply to a show cause notice issued before 29.03.2018, as Explanation 4 to Section 28 preserved the pre-amendment position. The corrigendum was therefore unsustainable, and the adjudication had to proceed only on the original show cause notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a corrigendum introducing fresh allegations and evidence could be considered after the adjudication hearing had concluded and the matter was reserved for final order; (ii) whether the amended scheme under Section 28(7A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 4(d) of the Customs (Supplementary Notice) Regulations, 2019 could be invoked for a show cause notice issued prior to 29.03.2018.

Issue (i): Whether a corrigendum introducing fresh allegations and evidence could be considered after the adjudication hearing had concluded and the matter was reserved for final order.

Analysis: The show cause proceedings had been completed and the adjudicating authority had already concluded the hearing and reserved the matter for orders. The corrigendum was issued later and sought to introduce a new allegation and additional material, not a mere clerical correction. In these circumstances, the new matter could not be brought into the adjudication at the stage of final order.

Conclusion: The corrigendum could not be considered in the pending adjudication and was liable to be ignored.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended scheme under Section 28(7A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 4(d) of the Customs (Supplementary Notice) Regulations, 2019 could be invoked for a show cause notice issued prior to 29.03.2018.

Analysis: Section 28(7A) and the supplementary notice regulations were relied on by the revenue to justify the corrigendum, but the notice in the case had been issued in 2014. Explanation 4 to Section 28 preserved the pre-29.03.2018 position for such notices, so the later supplementary-notice regime did not govern the proceedings. The corrigendum therefore could not be sustained under the amended framework.

Conclusion: The amended supplementary-notice provisions did not apply to the proceedings and could not validate the corrigendum.

Final Conclusion: The impugned corrigendum was held unsustainable, and the adjudication was directed to proceed on the original show cause notice without taking it into account.

Ratio Decidendi: A fresh allegation or additional evidence cannot be introduced by corrigendum after adjudication has concluded where the notice is governed by the pre-amendment regime, and later supplementary-notice provisions do not apply retrospectively to such proceedings.

---