Remand directions must be properly followed before classifying imported goods where material factual contentions remain unaddressed.

Where an adjudicating authority failed to comply with an earlier remand direction for re-testing of the sample and did not address the appellant's material factual contentions on the nature of the imported goods, the order could not be sustained. The remand had been made because the chemical test reports were contradictory, yet on remand the authority proceeded without a remnant sample and without examining the claim that the consignment was part of a common bulk shipment, or that similar goods from the same vessel had been accepted and finally assessed at another port. The matter was therefore set aside and remanded for fresh decision after personal hearing, with all issues left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was sustainable when the adjudicating authority did not comply with the earlier remand direction for re-testing of the sample and did not deal with the appellant's material facts concerning the nature of the imported goods.

Analysis: The earlier remand required re-testing because the chemical test reports were contradictory. On remand, the remnant sample was not available, and the adjudicating authority proceeded on the basis of the existing reports and earlier material. The order, however, did not examine the appellant's specific contention that the consignment formed part of a common bulk shipment and that similar goods from the same vessel had been accepted and finally assessed at another port. Those aspects were material to deciding whether the goods were coking coal or coal other than coking coal, particularly in the absence of re-testing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after granting personal hearing. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was sent back for reconsideration on merits, with all issues left open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a remand direction is not effectively carried out and material factual contentions bearing on classification or exemption are not addressed, the adjudication order cannot be sustained and the matter must be decided afresh.

---