Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 16.07.2026
Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Corrigendum in Pigment Import
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
Messers Vidres India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. challenged a Corrigendum issued by the customs authorities after the conclusion of adjudication proceedings regarding the classification and assessment of imported pigments. The dispute centered on whether the imported goods should be classified as “Pigments” (as claimed by the petitioners) or “Printing Ink” (as alleged by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, DRI), which would attract a higher customs duty.
Timeline of Events
- 2012β2013: Petitioners imported several consignments of pigments, cleared under the classification 32071090, and paid the assessed customs duties.
- April 2014: DRI issued a show cause notice proposing to reclassify the imports as “Printing Ink” based on laboratory reports, seeking higher duties.
- 2014β2016: Petitioners responded, requested cross-examination, and participated in hearings. The adjudicating authority concluded the hearing on July 11, 2016, and reserved the matter for final orders.
- August 22, 2016: After the hearing was concluded, the customs department issued a Corrigendum introducing new allegations and evidence, linking the petitioners’ imports to those of another company, M/s. Krishna Colour Chem.
Legal Arguments
Petitioners
- The Corrigendum was issued after the adjudication process had concluded, which is not permissible under the law.
- Corrigenda are meant for correcting minor errors, not for introducing new evidence or allegations.
- The relevant legal provisions (Section 28 of the Customs Act, as it stood before March 29, 2018) did not allow for such post-hearing amendments.
Customs Department
- Argued that amendments to Section 28 and subsequent regulations allowed for supplementary notices when new evidence emerged.
- Cited the right to amend or supplement the show cause notice prior to adjudication, as stated in the original notice.
Court’s Analysis
- The Court found that the adjudication process was completed on July 11, 2016, and the Corrigendum was issued more than a month later, introducing new allegations and evidence.
- The clause in the show cause notice allowing amendments applied only “prior to the adjudication of the case.” Since the hearing had concluded, this did not apply.
- Amendments to Section 28 of the Customs Act (including the power to issue supplementary notices) introduced after March 29, 2018, did not apply retroactively to this case, as clarified by Explanation-4 to Section 28.
- The Corrigendum was not a mere correction but an attempt to introduce new material after the close of proceedings, which was not permissible.
Final Judgment
The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners:
- The customs department’s Corrigendum dated August 22, 2016, was quashed.
- The department was directed to pass final orders on the original show cause notice, ignoring the Corrigendum.
- The ruling reinforces the principle that new evidence or allegations cannot be introduced after the conclusion of adjudication proceedings unless specifically permitted by law.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the limits of the customs authorities’ powers to amend or supplement show cause notices after the close of hearings. It upholds procedural fairness and ensures that parties are not subjected to new allegations without due process.
The case serves as an important precedent for importers and legal practitioners dealing with customs disputes, emphasizing the need for authorities to adhere strictly to statutory timelines and procedures.
Source: Gujarat High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379