Customs valuation of customised goods: fresh factual grounds were barred, and declared transaction value was upheld without contemporaneous comparison.

Customs valuation of customised related-party goods turned on two points: fresh factual grounds not raised before the adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeals) could not be introduced for the first time before the Tribunal, so the Revenue's additional objections were not maintainable; and, where the goods were customised and no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods were available, comparison with such imports was unnecessary. On those facts, the declared transaction value was accepted and the valuation challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Revenue could urge new grounds before the Tribunal that were not raised before the lower authorities; (ii) whether, in a related-party customs valuation dispute concerning customised goods, comparison with contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods was necessary.

Issue (i): Whether the Revenue could urge new grounds before the Tribunal that were not raised before the lower authorities.

Analysis: The dispute before the Tribunal arose from the Revenue's challenge to the order accepting the declared value in the Special Valuation Branch proceedings. The only ground taken before the lower appellate authority was absence of comparison with contemporaneous imports. The additional grounds introduced before the Tribunal were not part of the case before the adjudicating authority or the Commissioner (Appeals). A party cannot shift to a fresh factual case for the first time in second appeal when the factual foundation was never laid below.

Conclusion: The new grounds were held to be not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether, in a related-party customs valuation dispute concerning customised goods, comparison with contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods was necessary.

Analysis: The Special Valuation Branch had examined the agreements and documents and accepted the invoice price as the transaction value. The goods were found to be customised, and both the lower authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods were available. In such circumstances, the requirement of comparison with contemporaneous imports did not arise, and there was no infirmity in accepting the declared value on the facts found.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value was correctly accepted and no contemporaneous-import comparison was required on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the appellate order accepting the valuation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot raise a fresh factual valuation case for the first time before the Tribunal, and where goods are customised and no contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods exist, the accepted transaction value need not be displaced on that ground alone.

---