Tribunal overturns order due to inadmissible evidence, unreliable survey, and lacking statements. Appeals granted.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the electronic evidence was inadmissible, the market survey was unreliable, and the retracted statements had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs, if any.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of electronic evidence.
2. Compliance with Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of the market survey and valuation method.
4. Reliability of statements and retractions.
5. Comparison with contemporaneous imports.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of electronic evidence:
The appellant disputed the admissibility of printouts from hard disks and pen drives seized during the investigation, arguing that these printouts were not admissible as evidence. The Tribunal noted that the printouts were not taken in the presence of any authorized person, and no certificate as required under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 was prepared. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments, including Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Others, to conclude that the electronic evidence did not meet the legal requirements and thus could not be relied upon.

2. Compliance with Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal observed that the mandatory provisions of Section 138C were not followed. The seized electronic devices were not opened in the presence of the appellant or any authorized person, and the printouts were not accompanied by the necessary certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of compliance with Section 138C rendered the electronic evidence inadmissible.

3. Validity of the market survey and valuation method:
The Tribunal found that the market survey relied upon by the Revenue was conducted in the absence of the appellant and was based on quotations for single pieces of batteries, which were not comparable to the bulk imports made by the appellant. The Tribunal held that valuation could not be based on mere quotations without evidence of actual sales at those prices. The Tribunal also criticized the denial of cross-examination of the representatives who provided the quotations, further undermining the reliability of the market survey.

4. Reliability of statements and retractions:
The Tribunal noted that the statements of Shri Kapil Garg, which were used to support the undervaluation allegation, were retracted. The Tribunal held that retracted statements, in the absence of corroborative evidence of payment over and above the declared value, had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal cited several judgments to support this view, including Vinod Solanki v. UOI and Mohtesham Mohd Ismail v. Special Director.

5. Comparison with contemporaneous imports:
The Tribunal found that the imports cited by the Revenue for comparison were not contemporaneous as they involved smaller quantities compared to the bulk imports made by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the declared value could not be rejected based on such non-comparable imports. The Tribunal also noted that previous investigations and market surveys had already established the value of similar batteries imported by the appellant, further supporting the declared value.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding that the electronic evidence was inadmissible, the market survey was unreliable, and the retracted statements had no evidentiary value. The Tribunal allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs, if any.

---