Licensing orders cannot be remanded on later misdeclaration claims; separate post-clearance issues require a fresh show cause notice.

An order confined to the licensing requirement for imported goods could not be reopened through a departmental remand request based on later evidence of misdeclaration and undervaluation. Where those allegations arose from post-clearance investigation and were not decided in the original order, the proper course was to issue a fresh show cause notice and proceed on those distinct issues separately. The record did not show any illegality or impropriety in the lower authority's order, so the request for de novo reconsideration was not justified and the departmental appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal seeking remand for de novo consideration on the basis of subsequent evidence of misdeclaration and undervaluation was maintainable when the original order dealt only with the licensing requirement for importation.

Analysis: The original order was confined to the question whether the imported goods required a licence as restricted goods. The later material relating to misdeclaration and undervaluation arose from post-clearance investigation and pertained to matters not decided in the original order. In such a situation, the proper course was to issue a fresh show cause notice and proceed on those distinct issues, rather than set aside the licensing order and remand the case for de novo consideration. No illegality or impropriety in the lower authority's order was shown from the record or the grounds of appeal.

Conclusion: The request for remand was not justified and the departmental appeal failed.

---