Customs valuation of second-hand machinery and electronic evidence must meet statutory proof requirements before undervaluation is sustained.

In customs valuation disputes involving second-hand machinery, the note states that a declared value already assessed on the basis of inspection and chartered engineer certificates under the governing circular cannot be displaced without lawful challenge and reliable proof of undervaluation. It further states that electronic printouts and device data relied upon for valuation or demand are inadmissible unless supported by the statutory certificate required for electronic records under section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. On that reasoning, the note records that undervaluation was not established and electronic evidence could not sustain duty demand, interest, or penalties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the declared value of the imported second-hand machinery could be rejected and undervaluation proved on the material relied upon by the department; (ii) Whether electronic records relied upon for valuation and demand were admissible without compliance with the certificate requirement under section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether the declared value of the imported second-hand machinery could be rejected and undervaluation proved on the material relied upon by the department.

Analysis: The imports had been assessed on the basis of inspection and valuation certificates issued by chartered engineers under the Board's circular governing valuation of second-hand machinery. That depreciated value was not challenged in the show cause notice or disproved in the adjudication order. The department later sought to discard only the declared value and proceeded on pro forma invoices, verbal statements and other materials, including values fixed without documentary support in some cases. The record did not show any lawful basis to discard the valuation already adopted at import, and the department could not rely on inconsistent approaches to the same goods.

Conclusion: Undervaluation was not established, and rejection of the earlier assessed value was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether electronic records relied upon for valuation and demand were admissible without compliance with the certificate requirement under section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The department relied on printouts and data recovered from mobile phones and hard disks, but no certificate under section 138C accompanied those electronic records. The provision governing admissibility of such material is a special provision and must be complied with for electronic evidence to be used in customs proceedings. In the absence of the statutory certificate, the electronic records could not be treated as admissible proof for confirming undervaluation or duty demand.

Conclusion: The electronic evidence was inadmissible and could not support the demand or penalties.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest and penalties failed on merits, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: In customs valuation disputes involving second-hand machinery, a valuation already adopted under the governing circular cannot be displaced without lawful challenge and proof, and electronic records are unusable unless the statutory certificate for admissibility is furnished.

---