Computer-generated shipping records accepted as secondary evidence, limiting duty and penalties to containers without proof of re-export

Computer-generated shipping-line printouts and related system records may be accepted as secondary evidence of re-export where they originate from the party's own records and Revenue produces no material to disprove their reliability. On that basis, proof of the containers' location outside India was accepted for most containers, and liability could not be sustained as a wholesale demand for all containers. Duty, redemption fine and penalty were therefore confined to the 11 containers for which no proof of location or re-export was available, with proportionate redetermination directed for the unresolved balance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether website printouts and other computer-generated records produced by the appellant were acceptable as secondary evidence of re-export of the containers. (ii) Whether duty, redemption fine and penalty could survive only in respect of the containers for which no proof of location or re-export was available.

Issue (i): Whether website printouts and other computer-generated records produced by the appellant were acceptable as secondary evidence of re-export of the containers.

Analysis: The earlier remand order had directed consideration of secondary evidence in the peculiar facts of the case. The appellant produced printouts from its shipping-line website showing the location and status of the containers, and the records indicated that most of the containers were outside India. The objection that the source of the printouts was not established was not accepted, since the records were part of the appellant's own system and there was no material to show that they were false. The reliance placed on Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was found insufficient to reject the evidence, because the Commissioner did not analyze the provision properly and no certification from foreign port authorities could reasonably be insisted upon in the absence of rebuttal by Revenue.

Conclusion: The secondary evidence produced by the appellant was accepted as proof of re-export for the containers whose location outside India stood shown.

Issue (ii): Whether duty, redemption fine and penalty could survive only in respect of the containers for which no proof of location or re-export was available.

Analysis: The appellant fairly conceded that the whereabouts of 11 containers were not known and accepted proportionate liability for those containers. In the circumstances, the adjudication could not stand as a wholesale demand for all 72 containers after acceptance of the appellant's secondary evidence for the remaining containers. The matter therefore required fresh quantification only for the unresolved containers and for consequential redetermination of redemption fine and penalty on a proportionate basis.

Conclusion: Duty, redemption fine and penalty were confined to the 11 containers for which no proof was available, and the matter was remanded for proportionate redetermination.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with acceptance of the appellant's secondary evidence and remand only for limited reassessment relating to the 11 containers and consequential penalties and redemption fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reliable computer-generated records from the party's own system show the location and status of goods and Revenue produces no material to disprove them, such records may be accepted as secondary evidence to establish re-export, and liability must then be confined to the goods for which no proof is available.

---