Unauthenticated import invoices cannot sustain undervaluation allegations when they lack proper certification and competent authority authentication.

Unauthenticated import invoices obtained from the Consulate, and not bearing the seal or signature of the competent authority, could not be treated as reliable evidence to support an undervaluation allegation. The evidentiary requirement under Section 138 of the Customs Act, 1962 demanded admissible and properly authenticated material, which was absent on the facts. As the invoices could not sustain the charge, the order dropping the undervaluation demand was upheld and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged import invoices, obtained from the Consulate and not bearing seal or signature of the competent authority, could be relied upon to allege undervaluation of the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged import invoices, obtained from the Consulate and not bearing seal or signature of the competent authority, could be relied upon to allege undervaluation of the imported goods.

Analysis: The invoices forming the basis of the undervaluation charge were not certified by the Consulate General of India and did not bear any seal or signature of the competent person. In the absence of such authentication, they could not be treated as reliable evidence for fastening a charge of undervaluation. The evidentiary principle under Section 138 of the Customs Act, 1962 required admissible and authenticated material, which was lacking on the facts.

Conclusion: The invoices could not be relied upon to prove undervaluation, and the finding dropping the demand was correct.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order rejecting the undervaluation allegation failed, and the revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Unauthenticated documents lacking the seal or signature of the competent authority cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence to sustain an allegation of undervaluation.

---