Binding remand directions and judicial discipline bar reliance on an incompetent test report in adjudication.

A subordinate authority must follow a remand direction and cannot sustain adjudication on a laboratory report already found incompetent for decision-making. Here, the original authority again relied on the earlier report of M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. instead of obtaining retesting through an Agmark-approved laboratory as directed, and the appellate authority upheld that approach. That disregard of the binding remand order offended judicial discipline, so the foundation for confiscation, fine and penalty was vitiated. The impugned order was set aside and the relief already granted to the appellant was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order could be sustained when the original adjudication again relied on the test report of a laboratory earlier found not competent for adjudication under the applicable DGFT circular.

Analysis: The matter had already been remanded for retesting through an Agmark-approved laboratory because the earlier report of M/s SGS India Pvt. Ltd. was not a qualified basis for decision. Despite that direction, the original authority proceeded on the same earlier report, and the appellate authority upheld that approach. Such reliance was contrary to the earlier binding direction and offended judicial discipline. The basis of confiscation, fine and penalty was therefore vitiated.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the relief granted to the appellant was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the confiscation and penalty order did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority cannot disregard a remand direction and sustain adjudication on a report that has already been held incompetent for the purpose of decision-making.

---