Limited remand and contemporaneous evidence control customs valuation; blanket loading across all imports is unsustainable.

A limited remand bound the adjudicating authority to the earlier finding that the buyer and seller were not related, so that finding could not be reopened in de novo proceedings. On valuation, the department had to justify enhancement with contemporaneous evidence for the specific imported goods; a uniform percentage loading across all products was not sustainable. Contemporary prices for some items, including lower or equal prices, had to be considered before any fresh loading. The matter was remanded again for restricted re-determination of value, confined to relevant contemporaneous evidence and without disturbing the earlier findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the earlier remand constrained the adjudicating authority from re-opening the finding on relationship and from making a pro rata loading across all imported goods; (ii) whether the assessable value could be enhanced on the basis of uniform loading without contemporary import evidence for the specific goods.

Issue (i): whether the earlier remand constrained the adjudicating authority from re-opening the finding on relationship and from making a pro rata loading across all imported goods;

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had expressly held that the buyer and seller were not related and that pro rata loading based only on three products was not permissible. Those findings were not challenged and therefore governed the de novo proceedings. The remand was not open-ended but limited, and the adjudicating authority was bound to act within those findings.

Conclusion: The remand was limited, and the adjudicating authority could not revisit the related-person finding or apply a blanket loading across all products.

Issue (ii): whether the assessable value could be enhanced on the basis of uniform loading without contemporary import evidence for the specific goods.

Analysis: Once relationship was negatived, the burden lay on the department to support enhancement with contemporary evidence of comparable imports. The importer had produced contemporaneous prices for some items, including instances where prices were the same or lower, which had not been properly considered. A uniform percentage loading across all goods was held to be unsustainable, and comparison could be made only for the specific goods for which reliable contemporary evidence existed.

Conclusion: Uniform enhancement of value was not justified; only a fresh loading for the particular goods supported by contemporary evidence could be made after hearing the importer.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh determination of value in a restricted manner, with the earlier findings kept intact and the valuation exercise confined to relevant contemporaneous evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier appellate order imposes a limited remand and negates the relationship between buyer and seller, the adjudicating authority must confine itself to contemporaneous evidence for the specific goods and cannot apply a blanket loading to all imports.

---