https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352461 On an open remand in a customs valuation dispute, the appellate authority cannot direct collection of Extra Duty Deposit pending fresh adjudication when the original order had been set aside for reconsideration of Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the related issues of transaction value, direct payments, indirect payments and conditions of sale. Because the lis remained undecided and had to be examined afresh by the lower authority, an interim EDD direction exceeded the scope of the remand and lacked jurisdiction, particularly where the importer had initially succeeded before the adjudicating authority. The 5% EDD demand on all bills of entry was therefore unsustainable. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:38:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352461 On an open remand in a customs valuation dispute, the appellate authority cannot direct collection of Extra Duty Deposit pending fresh adjudication when the original order had been set aside for reconsideration of Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the related issues of transaction value, direct payments, indirect payments and conditions of sale. Because the lis remained undecided and had to be examined afresh by the lower authority, an interim EDD direction exceeded the scope of the remand and lacked jurisdiction, particularly where the importer had initially succeeded before the adjudicating authority. The 5% EDD demand on all bills of entry was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352461