Electronic evidence and corroboration in clandestine removal cases require strict compliance with admissibility and statement procedure safeguards.

Computer printouts and seized electronic records can support a clandestine removal allegation only when the Section 36B conditions for admissibility are met, including a proper certificate from a responsible person. Statements recorded during investigation also lose evidentiary value unless the Section 9D procedure is followed. In the absence of admissible electronic evidence, compliant statements, and independent corroboration such as stock discrepancies, excess raw material use, transport proof, buyer confirmation, or flow-back evidence, clandestine clearance is not established. On that basis, duty demand, interest, and penalties cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the computer printouts and other seized data could be relied upon as evidence against the appellant company. (ii) Whether the mandatory requirements for admissibility of computer printouts under Section 36B were complied with. (iii) Whether the statements recorded during investigation could be relied upon without compliance with Section 9D. (iv) Whether the allegations of clandestine clearance were supported by corroborative evidence. (v) Whether the duty demand, interest and penalties could be sustained on the material on record.

Issue (i): Whether the computer printouts and other seized data could be relied upon as evidence against the appellant company.

Analysis: The seized documents and computer-generated material were treated as the principal basis of the demand, but the author of the data was not reliably identified and the connection of the material with the appellant was not established through admissible evidence. The evidentiary value of electronic material depended on compliance with the statutory safeguards governing such records.

Conclusion: The computer printouts and seized data could not be relied upon as ative evidence against the appellant company.

Issue (ii): Whether the mandatory requirements for admissibility of computer printouts under Section 36B were complied with.

Analysis: The printouts were not accompanied by a certificate from a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the relevant device or activity, and the conditions governing production and authenticity of electronic records were not satisfied. A certificate given by a person having no responsibility for the data entry or operation of the device was held insufficient.

Conclusion: The requirements of Section 36B were not complied with, so the computer printouts were inadmissible.

Issue (iii): Whether the statements recorded during investigation could be relied upon without compliance with Section 9D.

Analysis: The statements relied upon in the demand were not tested through examination-in-chief in adjudication, and the procedure prescribed by Section 9D was not followed. In the absence of such compliance, the statements lost evidentiary value and could not be treated as relevant material to prove the allegations.

Conclusion: The statements recorded during investigation could not be relied upon for confirming the demand.

Issue (iv): Whether the allegations of clandestine clearance were supported by corroborative evidence.

Analysis: Apart from private records and statements, there was no tangible corroboration such as proof of excess consumption, shortage of stock, unaccounted raw material, transport evidence, buyer confirmation, flow back of funds, or other affirmative evidence normally required to establish clandestine manufacture and removal. The case rested on assumptions and uncorroborated private material.

Conclusion: The allegations of clandestine clearance were not substantiated by corroborative evidence.

Issue (v): Whether the duty demand, interest and penalties could be sustained on the material on record.

Analysis: Once the electronic records were held inadmissible, the statements were excluded for want of compliance with Section 9D, and no independent corroboration existed, the foundation of the demand failed. The penalties on the company and the individuals were also unsupported because the alleged clandestine activity itself was not proved.

Conclusion: The duty demand, interest and penalties were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was set aside in full because the alleged clandestine removal was not proved by admissible and corroborated evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for clandestine removal, computer printouts and recorded statements can support a demand only when the statutory conditions for electronic evidence and witness examination are strictly complied with, and the allegation must be proved by independent corroborative material.

---