Court quashes illegal customs orders, directs compliance with Appellate Authority, upholds provisional assessment.

The court quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, deeming them illegal and without jurisdiction. The Assistant Collector was directed to determine the value of goods in compliance with the Appellate Authority's order under Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act. The court upheld the provisional assessment order but restrained authorities from implementing the annulled orders. No costs were awarded, and the court's order was stayed for four weeks, maintaining the interim order's effect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector, while acting on remand, could ignore the appellate directions and reapply Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 instead of determining the assessable value in accordance with Section 14(1)(b), and whether the impugned assessment orders were therefore jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appellate order had annulled the original assessment and remitted the matter for re-examination on merits, with directions to determine the quantum of discount claim relatable to after-sales service or expenditure by the local sole agents. That remand bound the Assistant Collector to act within the scope of the appellate decision. On remand, however, the Assistant Collector proceeded as if Section 14(1)(a) governed the case and expressly declined to follow the appellate order. The remand did not leave the matter at large so as to permit a fresh and contrary determination on the same jurisdictional question. The impugned orders therefore travelled beyond the limits of the remand and were made in violation of the appellate directions. In these circumstances, the Court found it unnecessary to finally determine the broader valuation controversy or the challenge to the finding of suppression of facts.

Conclusion: The impugned orders dated 2-12-1972 and 5-3-1973 were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority acting on remand must confine itself to the scope and effect of the appellate order and cannot reopen or decide contrary to the binding directions of the appellate authority.

---