Limited remand cannot be expanded; duty must be re-quantified with export credit, and punitive levies fail without lawful foundation.

An adjudicating authority acting under a limited remand cannot reopen issues already concluded or exceed the scope of the remand. Here, duty was required to be re-quantified only after crediting the export obligation already fulfilled and applying the effective customs duty rate; the authority could not deny that credit or re-agitate fulfilment. Confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable because the earlier final finding had negatived wilful non-compliance, and no fresh lawful basis existed for fresh punitive action. Interest and penalty also failed, as there was no enabling provision for interest on the facts found and the absence of wilful breach defeated penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the adjudicating authority was bound to confine itself to re-quantification of duty liability by giving effect to the earlier remand and the extent of export obligation already fulfilled; (ii) whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained when the earlier remand had already negatived wilful non-compliance; and (iii) whether interest and penalty could be imposed in the absence of an enabling provision and in disregard of the earlier final findings.

Issue (i): whether the adjudicating authority was bound to confine itself to re-quantification of duty liability by giving effect to the earlier remand and the extent of export obligation already fulfilled

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had directed re-quantification only by taking into account the export obligation already fulfilled and the effective rate of customs duty. The adjudicating authority, instead of acting within that limited remit, reopened the question of fulfilment of export obligation and denied the benefit attributable to the exports already made. Such reopening was beyond the scope of the remand and contrary to the earlier final finding that the fulfilled portion of export obligation had to be given effect while determining the duty burden.

Conclusion: The adjudicating authority acted beyond the remand and the duty demand had to be restricted to re-quantification after crediting the export obligation already fulfilled.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained when the earlier remand had already negatived wilful non-compliance

Analysis: The earlier final order had recorded that there was no justification for treating the goods as liable to confiscation because the record did not establish wilful violation of the notification conditions. The present adjudication nevertheless ordered confiscation and imposed redemption fine, even though the remand did not authorise fresh punitive action on that aspect. In the absence of a fresh and legally sustainable basis, the confiscation and redemption fine could not stand.

Conclusion: Confiscation and redemption fine were not sustainable and were set aside.

Issue (iii): whether interest and penalty could be imposed in the absence of an enabling provision and in disregard of the earlier final findings

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had already held that there was no provision then available in the notification for demanding interest and that penalty was unjustified because wilful breach had not been established. The subsequent adjudication could not ignore those final findings. The cited Customs Act provisions did not furnish a basis to levy interest on the facts found, and penalty could not be imposed when the foundational finding of wilful non-compliance was absent.

Conclusion: The demand of interest and the penalty were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the duty determination was confined to re-quantification consistent with the earlier remand, and all punitive and ancillary impositions were annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudicating authority, while acting on a limited remand, cannot reopen issues already concluded or travel beyond the scope of the remand, and punitive demands such as confiscation, redemption fine, interest, and penalty cannot be sustained without a lawful basis and the necessary foundational findings.

---