Customs evidence rules require strict proof before statements and WhatsApp messages can sustain a penalty.

Statements recorded during customs investigation and WhatsApp messages cannot be relied on to sustain penal liability unless the statutory requirements for proof and admissibility are strictly met. Where persons whose statements are relied upon are not properly examined or made available for effective cross-examination, and electronic records are not proved in compliance with the prescribed procedure, the material is inadmissible. On that basis, the inference of abetment or participation in misdeclaration cannot stand, and the personal penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statements recorded during investigation and the WhatsApp messages could be relied upon against the appellant without compliance with the statutory procedure for admitting such material in evidence, and whether the personal penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: The penalty was founded principally on statements of persons recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on electronic messages exchanged on mobile devices. The statutory scheme under Section 138B requires that such statements be tested in the prescribed manner before they can be relied upon, and the record showed that the crucial witnesses were neither properly examined in the adjudication proceedings nor offered for effective cross-examination in the manner required by law. In the same way, the electronic material could not be treated as reliable evidence because the procedural requirements for admissibility of computer-generated evidence under Section 138C were not complied with. In the absence of admissible evidence, the inference of abetment or participation in the alleged misdeclaration could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The statements and WhatsApp messages were held inadmissible against the appellant, and the penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty order was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Material recorded during customs investigation cannot be used to sustain penal liability unless the statutory safeguards governing proof of statements and electronic records are strictly followed.

---