Natural justice and transaction value principles led to remand after undisclosed export data and CRCL material were relied upon.

Non-supply of relied-upon CRCL report and contemporaneous export data amounted to a breach of natural justice, and the adjudication could not be sustained on merits while denying remand. The declared export transaction value was governed by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and could be rejected only on cogent evidence; in the absence of disclosure of the material relied upon, relationship, flow-back, or other valid grounds, reworking export duty on contemporaneous prices and Fe content was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon documents, and whether the matter required remand; (ii) Whether the declared export transaction value could be rejected and export duty reworked on the basis of contemporaneous export data and Fe content.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of relied-upon documents, and whether the matter required remand.

Analysis: The relied-upon CRCL report and contemporaneous export data were not supplied to the appellant, and this violation was accepted in the impugned order itself. Once the breach of natural justice was recorded, the appellate authority could not sustain the adjudication on merits while refusing remand. The appellate power includes the power to annul and send the matter back for fresh decision when the original order is procedurally defective.

Conclusion: The order was vitiated for breach of natural justice and the matter had to be remanded.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared export transaction value could be rejected and export duty reworked on the basis of contemporaneous export data and Fe content.

Analysis: Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 makes transaction value the governing basis, and such value can be rejected only for valid and cogent reasons. Here, full sale proceeds were realised, there was no allegation of relationship or flow-back, and no material was supplied to justify rejection of the declared value. For ad valorem export duty, moisture and Fe content were not determinative, and contemporaneous prices could not be used without establishing relevant comparability and without disclosure of the material relied upon.

Conclusion: Rejection of the declared transaction value was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where relied-upon material is withheld in breach of natural justice, and the declared transaction value is not shown by cogent evidence to be unacceptable, the order cannot be sustained and remand is warranted.

---