https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115204 An adjudicating authority must act strictly within the scope of a remand order and cannot reopen issues already settled by the remand directions. Here, the later order exceeded the remand by reconsidering the merits instead of limiting itself to re-quantification. The correct approach required application of the proper anti-dumping notification rate, exclusion of anti-dumping duty from the countervailing duty base, acceptance of the declared value, and re-calculation of penalty within the prescribed ceiling linked to the revised duty. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be remanded for fresh quantification of duty, interest and penalty in line with the earlier directions. en-us Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 16:45:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115204 An adjudicating authority must act strictly within the scope of a remand order and cannot reopen issues already settled by the remand directions. Here, the later order exceeded the remand by reconsidering the merits instead of limiting itself to re-quantification. The correct approach required application of the proper anti-dumping notification rate, exclusion of anti-dumping duty from the countervailing duty base, acceptance of the declared value, and re-calculation of penalty within the prescribed ceiling linked to the revised duty. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be remanded for fresh quantification of duty, interest and penalty in line with the earlier directions. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115204