Customs valuation requires proof from the agreement and record; unsupported finding on condition of sale justified remand.

A finding that a technical know-how or collaboration agreement does not impose a condition of sale for customs valuation must be supported by the relevant contractual provisions and evidence on record. Here, the original adjudication did not identify the agreement terms or material showing that the importer was free to source the goods from anywhere, or that the royalty and know-how arrangements had the asserted valuation effect. As that factual basis was missing, the appellate authority's remand for fresh adjudication was justified and was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter for fresh adjudication on the ground that the original adjudicating authority's finding that there was no condition of sale in the collaboration agreement was not supported by the agreement or evidence on record.

Analysis: The original order concluded that the technical know-how agreement did not create a condition of sale and that the imports were outside Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) and Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, but did not identify the contractual provisions or record the basis for those conclusions. The appellate authority noted that the agreement itself was not cited to show that the appellant was free to import the goods from anywhere or that the royalty and technical know-how arrangements had the effect asserted by the department. In the absence of supporting material, the finding on absence of condition of sale was held to be unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The remand ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appellant's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding on valuation or condition of sale must be supported by the relevant contractual provisions and evidence on record; where such basis is absent, remand for fresh adjudication is justified.

---