Prospective circulars cannot be applied retrospectively to expand remand scope and alter customs classification to importer's detriment.

A de novo adjudication must remain within the scope of the remand, and a later departmental circular cannot be used retrospectively to alter classification when the remand was limited to the application of an earlier circular. Here, once the imported goods were found physically similar to those covered by the earlier circular, reliance on the later circular to reclassify them under Heading 9404.29 and sustain differential duty went beyond the remand mandate. Because the later circular stated that the revised classification would apply only prospectively, earlier bills of entry could not be disturbed to the importer's detriment. The classification and duty demand were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner, in de novo adjudication, could travel beyond the scope of the remand and apply a later circular retrospectively to classify the imported goods under Heading 9404.29 and sustain the differential duty demand, notwithstanding the earlier circular and the Tribunal's directions.

Analysis: The remand was confined to examining whether the imported goods corresponded to those described in the earlier circular and whether that circular applied to imports made before its issuance. Once the Commissioner recorded that the physical characteristics of the imported goods were similar to those described in the earlier circular, the further reliance on the later circular to alter the classification exceeded the remand mandate. The later circular itself expressly stated that the revised classification would operate prospectively from its date of issue and that bills of entry filed between the two circular dates would continue under the earlier heading. A circular declared to be prospective cannot be used to disturb earlier assessments to the detriment of the importer, especially when the earlier circular contained no such bar to retrospective operation.

Conclusion: The retrospective application of the later circular was impermissible, the impugned order could not be sustained, and the classification and duty demands under Heading 9404.29 were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A de novo adjudication cannot exceed the scope of remand, and a departmental circular expressly made prospective cannot be applied retrospectively to alter completed or pending assessments to the detriment of the importer.

---