Electronic evidence inadmissibility under Customs law barred reliance on seized device printouts, defeating the duty demand.

Computer printouts and other electronic records used to prove under-valuation and misdeclaration were held inadmissible because no certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act was produced. The provision was treated as pari materia to Section 65B of the Evidence Act, so electronic evidence could not be acted upon unless the statutory safeguards for source, authenticity, and reliability were satisfied. As the duty demand depended substantially on that electronic material, the demand could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether computer printouts and other electronic records relied upon to establish under-valuation and misdeclaration were admissible in the absence of the certificate contemplated by Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the duty demand based on such material could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 138C prescribes the conditions under which computer printouts and other electronic records can be treated as evidence. The records relied upon by the Revenue were generated from seized laptops and other electronic devices, but no certificate was produced to satisfy the statutory requirements. The provision was treated as pari materia to Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and the governing principle applied was that electronic evidence cannot be acted upon unless the statutory safeguards ensuring source, authenticity, and reliability are fulfilled. Since the adjudication rested substantially on such electronic material, and those requirements were not met, the evidence could not be relied upon to sustain the charge.

Conclusion: The electronic records were inadmissible, and the duty demand founded on them could not be upheld. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the appeals were allowed.

---