Customs valuation basis cannot be changed on appeal when the original assessment proceeded under a different rule.

An appellate authority cannot sustain a customs valuation by switching to a new rule when the original assessment was made under a different rule and had expressly excluded the others. Here, the original authority valued the goods under Rule 9(1)(a) and rejected Rules 5 and 6, but the appellate order sought to uphold the assessment by invoking Rule 5. That change in valuation basis introduced a different case from the one decided originally and was not sustainable in law. The appellate order was set aside, leaving the original assessment undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could sustain the assessment by invoking Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 when the original authority had proceeded under Rule 9(1)(a) of those Rules and had held Rules 5 and 6 inapplicable.

Analysis: The original authority had determined that the agent discount was to be included in the value under Rule 9(1)(a) and had expressly ruled out the applicability of Rules 5 and 6. The appellate order, however, shifted the basis of valuation by invoking Rule 5. Such a shift introduced a case different from the one decided by the original authority and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was not sustainable in law and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the assessment made by the original authority stood undisturbed while the appellate order was vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority cannot introduce and sustain a new valuation basis different from that adopted in the original order when deciding the appeal.

---