JUDGMENT : Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 10.12.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7591 of 2015 by allowing the appeal.) 1. The Department of Customs has filed the above appeal against the order dated 10.12.2018 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7591 of 2015. 2. The respondent/writ petitioner had imported 'Star Aniseeds' through Tuticorin Port. The said Star Aniseeds were undervalued by the respondent for evasion of duty. The investigation revealed that the respondent/writ petitioner imported 'Star Aniseeds' vide 59 bills of entry from April 2009 by declaring the value as Rs.62.86/- and Rs.70.88/- per Kg. The imports were from Vietnam, China and Singapore. It is further investigated that the other importers had imported the same 'Star Aniseeds' and declared the value at Rs.138/- per kg. Therefore, it was reported that the import comprise of 'Star Aniseeds' should be above Rs.130/- per kg. However, the respondent had imported through Tuticorin Port by undervaluing the same, by declaring the value between Rs.62.86/- and Rs.70.88/- per kg., from 2009. The respondent had admitted the above facts in respect of the container number, bills of lading number, marking of packages and the cargo and the quantity. The further investigation revealed that the respondent had with an intention to evade payment of customs duty, replaced the actual invoice issued by the original supplier. 3. The appellant also had found that the undervaluation made by the respondent/writ petitioner was supported by documents. It was found by the appellant that the respondent had substituted the actual invoice issued by the original supplier at overseas by changing only the supplier's name and the value with an intention to evade appropriate payment of customs duty. The documents received from the Customs Overseas Intelligence Network also revealed that the respondent had suppressed the actual value of the cargo. So having found that the respondent had in violation to the provisions of Section 46(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an intention to evade payment of higher customs duty by declaring low value, issued a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Act. Thereafter, following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority also passed the order in original on 16.01.2015. 4. The order in original had held that the goods already cleared were not available for seizure or for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, following the due process of law, the adjudicating authority also passed the order in original on 16.01.2015. 4. The order in original had held that the goods already cleared were not available for seizure or for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. It also rejected the value declared by the importer in respect of 59 bills of entry. The order in original directed payment of differential duty amount of Rs.9,21,42,713/- with interest. In addition, penalty equal to the duty sought to be evaded along with interest thereon was also levied. Aggrieved by the said order, W.P.(MD) No.7591 of 2015 was filed to quash the same. 5. The Writ Court had held that two of the declarations made before the China Customs were in foreign language and the writ petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice had sought for the translated and authenticated copies of the said document. When the documents which are in foreign language not known to the writ petitioner, the translated copies and the same should have been furnished. It was further held that when the value declared by the writ petitioner was rejected, the Officer should have determined the value in accordance with Rules. As the principles of natural justice was not complied with, the Writ Court had set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition remitting the matter back to the appellant herein to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The said order of remand is now challenged in the above writ petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Investigating Agency had thoroughly investigated based on the documentary evidence and also the voluntary declaration made by the writ petitioner and rejected the value declared by them. Therefore, the order in original was passed. As the entire case was based on the premises of undervaluation that too after the assessment has been completed and the entire issue was under-ruled by the Nodal Investigating Agency, there is no necessity for remitting the matter back to the authorities. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the writ petitioner had made a voluntary statement and admitted the offence. Therefore, even assuming that if a plea is taken that the statements are not voluntary and there was some retraction, mere retraction will not render the voluntary confession statement as invalid. 8. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the writ petitioner had made a voluntary statement and admitted the offence. Therefore, even assuming that if a plea is taken that the statements are not voluntary and there was some retraction, mere retraction will not render the voluntary confession statement as invalid. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. The writ Court had specifically noted the steps that contemplated in Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation(Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules and found that once the value declared by the importer is rejected, the proper Officer will have to determine the value by separate proceedings sequentially in accordance with Rules 4 to 9. The appellant failed to do so and therefore, the writ Court had rightly remitted back to the authorities for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Having failed to follow the procedure prescribed and the steps to be followed, the case had been remitted only for a fresh consideration for which, the authorities cannot have any grievance. As the decision making process of the authorities was flawed, the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter. Over which, the appellant cannot have any grievance as it is once again the appellant/Department which has to conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders. 10. In the light of the above discussion, We see no merit in the case of the appellant and the writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merits, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.(MD) No.7591 of 2015, dated 10.12.2018. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.