Clandestine removal valuation requires de novo remand where duty and penalty depend on fresh determination of clearances.

Clandestine removal allegations required a complete de novo remand because the quantity and value of the offending clearances had to be freshly determined before duty liability could be settled. Penalty under Rule 173Q, being linked to the value of the offending goods, could not be fixed independently until the duty and valuation issues were re-adjudicated. A full rehearing with a speaking order and opportunity of hearing was therefore necessary, and partial final determination was inappropriate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the entire matter, including the value of clandestinely removed goods, duty payable and penalty, should be remanded for de novo consideration.

Analysis: The controversy arose from allegations of clandestine removal and the consequential duty demand and penalty. The members differed on the extent of remand, but the final view accepted that the computation of duty could not be finally settled at that stage because the quantity and value of offending clearances had to be re-determined. Since penalty under Rule 173Q is linked to the value of the offending goods, the penalty also could not be fixed independently before the duty and value issues were freshly adjudicated. In these circumstances, a full rehearing with a speaking order and an opportunity of hearing was considered necessary.

Conclusion: The entire matter was required to be remanded for de novo consideration in accordance with law, including fresh determination of the value of clearances, duty liability and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the duty liability and penalty both depend on re-determination of the value and extent of clandestine removals, the proper course is a complete de novo remand rather than partial final determination.

---