Strict remand compliance in customs classification disputes bars reopening settled issues and unsupported confiscation, fine or penalty.

De novo adjudication is confined strictly to the scope of remand, and a subordinate authority cannot reopen a classification issue finally settled by a superior court. Where the earlier direction limited reconsideration to a factual question, reopening classification and adding confiscation, redemption fine or penalty exceeded jurisdiction and violated judicial discipline; the penalty on a deceased director was also unsustainable. Inordinate and unexplained delay in completing remand proceedings further prejudiced compliance and supported setting aside the orders. The impugned Tribunal and de novo orders were set aside, the importer's claimed classification was accepted, and assessment was directed under that heading with consequential duty benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal was maintainable before the High Court as one involving a classification dispute under the Customs Act; (ii) whether the de novo adjudication and the Tribunal's order exceeded the limited scope of remand and violated judicial discipline by reopening a settled classification issue and by imposing confiscation, redemption fine and penalty; (iii) whether the inordinate delay in completing the de novo proceedings vitiated the impugned orders.

Issue (i): whether the appeal was maintainable before the High Court as one involving a classification dispute under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the proper classification of imported goods and not on a question of value for assessment or any issue of general public importance extending beyond the parties. The controversy was confined to the inter se rights of the parties and therefore fell within the High Court's appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable before the High Court.

Issue (ii): whether the de novo adjudication and the Tribunal's order exceeded the limited scope of remand and violated judicial discipline by reopening a settled classification issue and by imposing confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The earlier writ decision had finally settled the classification principle and remitted only the factual inquiry as to whether the imported goods contained an embryo or live organism. In de novo adjudication, the authority was bound by that limited remand and could not reopen the classification issue or sit in judgment over the earlier binding directions. Confiscation and redemption fine were also beyond jurisdiction where the goods had already been provisionally released and no confiscation had been ordered earlier. Imposition of penalty on a director who was no longer alive was also unsustainable.

Conclusion: The de novo adjudication and the Tribunal's affirmation of it were unlawful and unsustainable.

Issue (iii): whether the inordinate delay in completing the de novo proceedings vitiated the impugned orders.

Analysis: The remand direction required prompt re-adjudication, but the department took years to commence and complete the exercise. Such unexplained delay caused serious prejudice and rendered compliance with the earlier factual enquiry direction impracticable after passage of time.

Conclusion: The inordinate delay furnished an additional ground to set aside the impugned orders.

Final Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order and the de novo adjudication order were set aside, the classification declared by the importer was accepted, and the imported goods were directed to be assessed under the claimed heading with consequential duty benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate authority in de novo proceedings is strictly bound by the scope of remand and cannot reopen an issue finally settled by a superior court, nor impose consequential burdens beyond the remand or after undue delay that defeats effective compliance.

---