Customs valuation challenge survives written acceptance where declared value is rejected without following the statutory procedure.

Written acceptance of enhanced import value does not, by itself, waive the importer's statutory right to challenge reassessment unless the valuation process complies with Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The Tribunal noted that the importer had sought clearance under protest, so the correspondence was not an unconditional acceptance of enhancement. It also stated that the proper officer must record and communicate reasons for doubting the declared value before rejecting it and reassessing the goods, and that acceptance in writing only dispenses with a speaking order under Section 17(5), not with compliance with the valuation procedure. The enhancement based solely on acceptance letters was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the appeals on the footing that the importer had accepted enhancement of value in writing and, for that reason, no speaking order was required, was legally sustainable, and whether the reassessment of imported goods without adherence to the statutory valuation procedure could be upheld.

Analysis: The appeals turned on the effect of the importer's letters of acceptance and whether they amounted to an unconditional waiver of the right to challenge reassessment. The Tribunal held that the correspondence on record showed that the importer had repeatedly sought clearance under protest and did not merely accept enhancement simpliciter. It further held that the statutory scheme under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 requires the proper officer to form and communicate reasons for doubting the declared value before proceeding to reject it and reassess the goods. The Tribunal also relied on the later High Court ruling that acceptance in writing relieves the officer only from passing a speaking order under Section 17(5), but does not extinguish the importer's statutory right to question the reassessment itself.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeals was unsustainable. The enhancement of value based only on the acceptance letters could not be maintained, and the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A written acceptance of reassessment dispenses only with the requirement of a speaking order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, but it does not waive the importer's statutory right to challenge the rejection of declared value unless the valuation process complies with Section 14 and Rule 12(2) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

---