Classification of waste and scrap and valuation must be fully examined before confiscation and duty liability are decided.

Failure to consider the appellant's core submissions on classification of imported goods as waste and scrap, their intended use, origin, and the proper basis of valuation rendered the adjudication incomplete. Because those issues were central to confiscation and duty liability, the order did not meet the standard of legality and propriety. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision after due consideration of the appellant's submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was sustainable when the appellant's submissions on classification as waste and scrap, the intended use of the goods, their origin, and the basis of valuation were not examined, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.

Analysis: The order did not deal with the appellant's principal contentions bearing on whether the imported goods fell within the definition of waste and scrap under the tariff note, nor did it address the method to be adopted for valuation. Those matters were central to determination of both confiscation and duty liability. An adjudication that omits consideration of such vital submissions is incomplete and does not satisfy the standard of legality and propriety.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh decision after proper consideration of the appellant's submissions.

---