Secondary evidence of origin certificates accepted where photostat copies were authentic and unsuspicious in customs assessment.

Photostat copies of invoices carrying the United Kingdom origin certificate were accepted as secondary evidence for preferential customs assessment where their authenticity was not in doubt. Applying the principle reflected in Illustration (a) to Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the appellate authority held that a photo copy of an original may prove its contents if the original is shown to be the source and no suspicion surrounds the copy. The prior acceptance of similar copies for other instalments and the absence of any circumstance casting doubt on genuineness supported admissibility, so rejection of the refund claim solely because originals were not produced was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether photostat copies of invoices containing the United Kingdom origin certificate could be accepted as secondary evidence for the purpose of claiming assessment at the preferential rate of duty and refund.

Analysis: The imported goods were claimed to be entitled to preferential duty on the footing of United Kingdom origin. The customs authorities rejected the claim because the original origin certificate was not produced within the stipulated time. The appellate authority examined whether the photostat copies filed with the refund claim could be treated as secondary evidence. Relying on Illustration (a) of Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the accepted principle was that a photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents when the photographed document is proved to be the original. In the absence of any circumstance casting doubt on the genuineness of the photostat copies, and particularly when the same customs house had accepted similar copies in respect of other instalments of the same imports, there was no reason to reject them merely because they were photostat copies. The fact that the appellant was a department of the Government of India was also treated as a factor negating any suspicion about the copies.

Conclusion: The photostat copies were held to be admissible and had to be accepted for assessing the goods at the preferential rate of duty, if otherwise in order, and the rejection of the refund claim on that ground was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A photostat copy of an original document may be accepted as secondary evidence where its authenticity is not in doubt and there is no circumstance suggesting suspicion about the copy.

---