Imported car valuation must disclose basis and depreciation, with opportunity to rebut material before fresh adjudication.

Valuation of an imported car was held unsustainable where the adjudication order did not disclose the basis for the adopted value or explain the 28% depreciation applied. The appellants' complaint that the valuation method had not been communicated was accepted, because they were entitled to know the material relied on and to rebut it with evidence. The matter was therefore required to be reconsidered in accordance with natural justice, and the case was remanded to the Original Authority for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to the appellants to produce evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the valuation order in respect of the imported car, including the adoption of value and depreciation, was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in view of lack of disclosure and denial of opportunity.

Analysis: The order did not disclose the basis of valuation, namely whether the figure was taken from a World Car Catalogue, the local market, or the manufacturer's catalogue, and also did not explain why depreciation of 28% had been adopted. The grievance that the method of valuation was not communicated to the appellants had force, and the appellants were entitled to meet the valuation material and adduce evidence in support of their claim. In these circumstances, the matter required reconsideration on the valuation method adopted, consistent with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The order was set aside to the extent necessary and the matter was remanded to the Original Authority for de novo consideration and re-adjudication, with opportunity to the appellants to produce evidence.

---