Undervaluation demand sustained on existing evidence; absence of fresh material meant no interference with remand-compliant adjudication.

A de novo adjudication that curtailed the duty demand and penalties in line with remand directions was sustained because the adjudicating authority relied on the existing evidence record and no additional material was produced to prove undervaluation. The later authority cited on transaction value did not justify interference on the facts presented. The stated principle is that, where an order conforms to remand directions and the revenue adduces no further evidence to support undervaluation, the resulting demand and penalties will not be disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduced demand and penalties sustained in de novo adjudication on the basis of the evidence on record and the earlier remand directions required interference in the revenue appeal.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority was found to have acted in accordance with the remand directions and restricted the demand on the basis of the available evidence. The revenue did not place any additional evidence to support the allegation of undervaluation beyond what had already been considered. In these circumstances, the impugned order was held to be sustainable. The reliance placed on a later decision concerning transaction value did not warrant interference on the facts of the present case.

Conclusion: The reduced duty demand and penalties were upheld, and the revenue challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of additional evidence to substantiate undervaluation, an adjudication based on the available record and in conformity with remand directions will not be interfered with.

---