Customs valuation cannot rest on departmental guidelines alone; consent at clearance does not bar a statutory appeal.

A consent letter given at clearance did not bar the importer from appealing, because the right of appeal under the Customs Act depends on whether the assessment is legally sustainable and affects the importer's rights. The reassessment was held invalid because the declared value was enhanced only on the basis of a DGOV guideline, without a legally sustainable rejection of the declared value and without sequential application of the Customs Valuation Rules. Departmental instructions could not override the statutory valuation framework, and the enhancement was therefore unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the importer was entitled to maintain the appeal despite having given a consent letter for enhancement of value; (ii) Whether reassessment of the imported goods by enhancing value on the basis of the DGOV guideline, without rejecting the declared value on legally sustainable grounds and without applying the Customs Valuation Rules sequentially, was valid.

Issue (i): Whether the importer was entitled to maintain the appeal despite having given a consent letter for enhancement of value.

Analysis: The right of appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be defeated merely because the importer had signed a consent letter at the stage of clearance. A consent given to avoid delay in clearance does not cure an assessment that is otherwise contrary to law, and the status of an aggrieved person depends on the legality of the assessment and its effect on the importer's rights.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to maintain the appeal and was an aggrieved person.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment of the imported goods by enhancing value on the basis of the DGOV guideline, without rejecting the declared value on legally sustainable grounds and without applying the Customs Valuation Rules sequentially, was valid.

Analysis: The enhancement was founded only on the DGOV guideline and not on contemporaneous import data or other material evidence showing misdeclaration or undervaluation. The declared value could not be discarded without following the statutory valuation framework in sequence, and departmental instructions could not override the Customs Valuation Rules. The prior decision in the appellant's own case on the same methodology reinforced that valuation based on LME-linked guideline pricing and discount bands was impermissible.

Conclusion: The reassessment and enhancement of value were invalid and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A consent letter does not bar an appeal where the assessment is contrary to the Customs Act and the Customs Valuation Rules, and declared value cannot be enhanced on the basis of departmental guidelines alone without statutory rejection of value and sequential application of the valuation rules.

---