Technical test report must be considered before sustaining customs demand; matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

An adjudication on plastic waste and scrap could not stand where the authority relied only on the customs laboratory report and failed to deal with the earlier CIPET test report. The technical report from CIPET, obtained at the instance of the development commissioner, described the goods as cut pieces of clear film with paper stickers, and the applicable public notice required due consideration of that report. Ignoring the earlier competent report while sustaining demand and penalties on the later report alone was unsustainable. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the appellants' submissions and the CIPET report.

---

---

Issues: Whether the adjudicating authority could sustain the demand and penalties without first considering the CIPET test report, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The goods were tested by CIPET at the instance of the development commissioner, and that report recorded the sample as cut pieces of clear film with paper stickers. The impugned order proceeded on the customs laboratory report without recording any finding on the CIPET report. In view of the applicable public notice and the earlier binding view that the nearest CIPET laboratory report must be given due consideration in matters of plastic waste and scrap, the CIPET report could not be ignored. The customs laboratory report could not be acted upon in isolation without dealing with the earlier technical report.

Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained and the matter had to be remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the appellants' submissions and the CIPET report.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a competent technical report is specifically required to be considered, an adjudication based only on a later contrary laboratory report without addressing the earlier report is unsustainable and calls for remand.

---