Non-adjudicatory sanction orders do not resolve pending interest claims, which require separate customs authority determination under law.

A sanction order implementing an earlier judicial direction for payment of the value of perished seized goods is distinguished from an appealable adjudication order where it neither decides a dispute nor determines a pending interest claim. Acceptance of the sanctioned tariff value does not resolve a separately asserted claim for interest on delayed payment. The notes state that the interest representation requires a reasoned determination by the competent customs authority in accordance with law, rather than relegation to the statutory appellate mechanism.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order sanctioning tariff value of seized goods pursuant to an earlier judicial direction was an appealable adjudication order requiring recourse to the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the appellant's unconsidered representation seeking interest on delayed payment of the tariff value required determination by the customs authority.

Issue (i): Whether the order sanctioning tariff value of seized goods pursuant to an earlier judicial direction was an appealable adjudication order requiring recourse to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The sanction order merely implemented the earlier direction permitting recovery of the value of perished seized goods. It did not adjudicate a dispute, and the appellant accepted the tariff value sanctioned. The outstanding claim for interest had not been decided in that order.

Conclusion: The sanction order was not an appealable adjudication order under the statutory appellate mechanism, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's unconsidered representation seeking interest on delayed payment of the tariff value required determination by the customs authority.

Analysis: The representation expressly sought payment with interest, but the interest claim had not been adjudicated by the authority or any judicial forum. The prior proceedings left the appellant free to pursue remedies available in law for that claim.

Conclusion: The customs authority must decide the representation seeking interest in accordance with law within the stipulated period, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The erroneous relegation to the statutory appellate forum was corrected, and the unresolved interest claim was required to receive a reasoned administrative determination.

Ratio Decidendi: An order merely sanctioning payment in compliance with a prior judicial direction, without adjudicating the claimant's pending interest request, is not an appealable adjudication order; the unaddressed claim must be decided by the competent authority.

---