Customs valuation remand cannot support interim EDD collection beyond the scope of fresh adjudication.

On an open remand in a customs valuation dispute, the appellate authority cannot direct collection of Extra Duty Deposit pending fresh adjudication when the original order had been set aside for reconsideration of Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the related issues of transaction value, direct payments, indirect payments and conditions of sale. Because the lis remained undecided and had to be examined afresh by the lower authority, an interim EDD direction exceeded the scope of the remand and lacked jurisdiction, particularly where the importer had initially succeeded before the adjudicating authority. The 5% EDD demand on all bills of entry was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on remand of the valuation dispute for fresh adjudication, the appellate authority could direct collection of Extra Duty Deposit at 5% on the bills of entry pending re-examination of the issues.

Analysis: The appellate order set aside the original adjudication and remanded the matter for fresh consideration because the lower authority had not examined the impact of Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the related questions concerning transaction value, direct payments, indirect payments, and the conditions of sale. In such an open remand, the lis remained undecided and was to be adjudicated afresh by the lower authority. A direction to collect EDD at that stage travelled beyond the scope of the remand order and was not supported by jurisdiction, especially when the importer had succeeded before the original adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The direction to collect 5% EDD on all bills of entry was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the petitioner.

---