Customs reassessment and remand requirements override departmental monetary-limit instructions where statute demands fresh adjudication.

CBIC monetary-limit instructions bind departmental officers, but they do not control the Tribunal where the statutory scheme requires a different course. In reassessment matters under the Customs Act, where the importer had accepted the enhanced value in writing, Section 128A(3)(b)(ii) required the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case for fresh adjudication rather than finally setting aside the reassessment without giving the department a proper opportunity. The preliminary objection based on the monetary-limit instruction was therefore rejected, and the departmental appeals were directed to proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the CBIC instruction fixing a monetary limit for departmental appeals before the Tribunal bound the Tribunal in the present facts, and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have remanded the matter where enhanced value after re-assessment under the Customs Act, 1962 had been accepted in writing by the importer.

Analysis: The instruction was examined in the light of the statutory source of administrative instructions, the binding force of departmental circulars on officers, and the settled position that such instructions do not control the courts or quasi-judicial authorities when they conflict with statutory mandate or the demands of justice. The dispute arose from multiple bills of entry concerning the same importer, the same commodity, and the same import period, and the Tribunal also considered the effect of Rule 6A of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 on appeal filing. On the merits of the preliminary objection, the Tribunal found that where reassessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 had been made and the importer had accepted the enhanced value in writing, the Commissioner (Appeals) was required under Section 128A(3)(b)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 to send the matter back for fresh adjudication rather than finally nullifying the reassessment without affording the department a proper opportunity.

Conclusion: The monetary-limit instruction was held not to bar consideration of the departmental appeal in these facts, and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed, and the departmental appeals were directed to proceed to hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Departmental monetary-limit instructions are binding on departmental officers, but they do not override the Tribunal's duty to follow the governing statute and ensure fair adjudication, including remand where the statutory scheme requires fresh consideration after reassessment.

---