2016 (9) TMI 466 - AT - Customs

Valuation - Direction to pay 1% of EDD of the invoice value - Valuation import from related overseas firm whether the Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the appeal has power to direct the lower authority to put pre-condition to decide the case in de novo - Held that - the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing 1% EDD is set aside following the judgement of the case Terumo Penpol Ltd. Vs. CC 2015 (6) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. Thus, commisioner (appeals) cannot put pre-condition to decide the case in de novo as that would prejudice the mind of the original authority while deciding the issue decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to direct payment of EDD
- Pre-condition of EDD imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) during remand

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order setting aside the OIO and remanding the matter for fresh determination of value on imports. The Commissioner directed the appellant to pay 1% EDD of the invoice value until the issuance of fresh orders. The primary issue was whether the Commissioner had the authority to impose such a pre-condition during remand.

2. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by directing the payment of 1% EDD during the remand process. Citing legal precedents like the Terumo Penpol Ltd. case, the appellant contended that while remanding, no pre-conditions should be imposed. The appellant emphasized that the Commissioner's directions should be limited to the proceedings and not involve financial impositions.

3. The Department reiterated the impugned order, supporting the Commissioner's decision to impose the 1% EDD pre-condition during the remand process.

4. Upon considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overstepped by directing the payment of 1% EDD as a pre-condition during the remand. Referring to the Terumo Penpol Ltd. and National Oxygen Ltd. cases, the Tribunal highlighted that such impositions could prejudice the adjudicating authority's decision-making process during the fresh adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the lower authority should decide afresh without any influence from previous observations or financial impositions.

5. The Tribunal, in line with the Hon'ble High Court orders, set aside the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order imposing the 1% EDD pre-condition. The Tribunal's decision was guided by legal principles and precedents that emphasized the need for a fair and unbiased fresh adjudication process without any prejudicial pre-conditions.

6. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles established by the Hon'ble High Court, ensuring a just and impartial remand process without undue financial burdens or pre-conditions. The appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's adherence to established legal precedents and principles of fair adjudication.