Binding judicial directions control remand orders; provisional release directed when no distinguishing facts justify different treatment.

An appellate remand was held unsustainable where the first appellate authority departed from binding judicial directions applicable to similar imports without recording any distinguishing facts. The Tribunal found that, in the absence of peculiar circumstances justifying different treatment, the remand was inconsistent with the governing legal position. It therefore set aside the remand order and directed provisional release of the goods, subject to compliance with the remaining statutory requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the first appellate authority remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority was sustainable, and whether the goods were liable to be provisionally released.

Analysis: The impugned remand was held unsustainable because the first appellate authority had not followed the governing higher judicial directions applicable to similar imports and had not recorded any peculiar or distinguishing facts to justify a different treatment from other similarly placed assessees. In the absence of such differentiation, the remand order was found to be inconsistent. The Tribunal therefore set aside the remand and directed provisional release of the goods, subject to compliance with the other statutory requirements.

Conclusion: The remand order was set aside and provisional release of the goods was directed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot sustain a remand where it departs from binding judicial directions in similar matters without recording distinguishing facts; in such circumstances, provisional release may be directed.

---