Customs valuation challenge succeeds where reassessment relies on guidelines alone and consent does not bar appeal rights.

A consent letter given to avoid delay in clearance did not extinguish the importer's statutory right to challenge reassessment, so the appeals remained maintainable under the Customs Act. Value enhancement of the imported goods was also unsustainable because it was based only on DGOV guidelines, without contemporaneous import evidence and without applying the Customs Valuation Rules in the prescribed sequence. The decision reiterates that declared value cannot be rejected mechanically and that departmental guidance cannot override statutory valuation requirements. The reassessment and consequential appellate rejection therefore could not stand, and relief followed for the importer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeals were not maintainable on the ground that the importer had given a consent letter and was therefore not an aggrieved person under section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether reassessment of the imported goods by enhancing value solely on the basis of DGOV guidelines, without following the Customs Valuation Rules and without contemporaneous import evidence, was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appeals were not maintainable on the ground that the importer had given a consent letter and was therefore not an aggrieved person under section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: A consent letter given to avoid delay in clearance does not by itself take away the statutory right of appeal against reassessment. Maintainability depends on whether the assessment order remains legally challengeable, not merely on the existence of such consent. The appellate forum also relied on the principle that procedural acquiescence cannot cure an assessment made contrary to the legal requirements governing reassessment.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected and the appeals were held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment of the imported goods by enhancing value solely on the basis of DGOV guidelines, without following the Customs Valuation Rules and without contemporaneous import evidence, was sustainable.

Analysis: The enhancement was made without any material showing misdeclaration and without reliance on contemporaneous import data. The valuation was adopted mechanically on the basis of a DGOV guideline, which cannot override the statute or the valuation rules. Rejection of declared value must be followed by sequential application of the valuation mechanism and supported by evidence. The reasoning was reinforced by the earlier order in the appellant's own case holding the same valuation method unsustainable.

Conclusion: The value enhancement was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and the consequent appellate rejection could not be sustained, and the importer's valuation challenge succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory valuation of imported goods cannot be replaced by departmental guidelines, and a consent letter does not extinguish the right to challenge an assessment that is not made in accordance with the Customs Act and the prescribed valuation rules.

---