Customs valuation cannot be reopened on a ground never raised in the notice, and appellate remand power was unavailable.

After amendment of Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remand a customs valuation matter, and any remand made on that basis was inconsistent with the amended appellate jurisdiction. The declared transaction value also could not be rejected, or the case remanded for reconsideration under the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, when that ground was not alleged in the show cause notice or adjudication order. A new valuation basis could not be introduced for the first time at the appellate stage, so the declared customs value was accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the matter after the amendment to Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected or the case remanded on the basis of the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 when that ground was not raised in the show cause notice or adjudication order.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the matter after the amendment to Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The appellate authority's remand was examined in the light of the Larger Bench ruling that, after the amendment, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer possessed remand power. Since the impugned order itself had remanded the matter, the remand aspect was inconsistent with the amended appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remand the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected or the case remanded on the basis of the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 when that ground was not raised in the show cause notice or adjudication order.

Analysis: The notice and the adjudication order proceeded only on the footing of rejection of transaction value under Rule 10(1) and Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. They did not allege non-fulfilment of the conditions in the proviso to Rule 4(2). A new ground could not be introduced at the appellate stage to test the declared value on a basis never put to the importer.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected or remanded for examination under the proviso to Rule 4(2); the declared value had to be accepted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned remand and valuation objection were set aside, resulting in acceptance of the declared customs value.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs valuation cannot be upheld on a ground not forming part of the show cause notice or adjudication order, and the appellate authority cannot remand the matter to supply such a new case.

---