Import valuation remand upheld where further supplier verification was needed before reassessing assessable value.

Where an import valuation dispute required further factual verification from the supplier's end, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter instead of sustaining the enhanced assessable value adopted by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that direction because the issue had not been finally concluded and further enquiry was necessary before re-determination. The remand order was therefore upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed, leaving the assessable value issue open for fresh verification in accordance with the appellate directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the valuation dispute for verification from the supplier's end and in declining to sustain the enhancement of assessable value adopted by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The importer had declared the value on the basis of the transaction documents available, while the department sought enhancement because the manufacturer's invoice was not produced. The Commissioner (Appeals), instead of finally affirming the enhanced value, set aside the adjudication and directed further verification from the supplier's end. The Tribunal found no infirmity in that course, as the matter had not been finally concluded by the appellate authority and further enquiry was warranted.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The dispute on assessable value remained open for fresh verification in accordance with the directions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the appellate authority finds the valuation issue requires further factual verification, a remand for enquiry and re-determination is permissible and does not call for interference absent infirmity in the direction.

---