Inadmissible electronic evidence and uncorroborated statements cannot sustain customs undervaluation demand or penalty against a consignment agent.

Customs demand and penalty cannot be sustained on unsigned electronic printouts and invoices recovered from storage devices when the statutory certificate for computer output is absent and the material is not independently corroborated. Unauthenticated electronic records, unsupported statements, and lack of proof of any additional payment or parallel invoicing were treated as insufficient to establish undervaluation. Where the foundation allegation fails, liability cannot be fastened on a consignment agent merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements, and the penalty also fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether computer printouts and invoices recovered from electronic devices could be relied upon as admissible evidence for alleging undervaluation and confirming customs demand and penalty; (ii) Whether the material on record established the appellant's complicity in the alleged under-valuation so as to sustain the penalty imposed on the consignment agent.

Issue (i): Whether computer printouts and invoices recovered from electronic devices could be relied upon as admissible evidence for alleging undervaluation and confirming customs demand and penalty.

Analysis: The evidence relied upon consisted of unsigned and unauthenticated printouts recovered from storage devices, without the statutory certificate required for computer output and without subsequent verification from the person from whose device they were said to have been retrieved. The statements relied upon were also not supported by independent corroboration, and there was no reliable evidence of any additional payment or contemporaneous material to prove enhancement of value. In these circumstances, the electronic documents were treated as inadmissible and incapable of supporting the demand.

Conclusion: The alleged undervaluation was not proved, and the demand based on such material was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record established the appellant's complicity in the alleged under-valuation so as to sustain the penalty imposed on the consignment agent.

Analysis: The only basis for fastening liability on the appellant was his statement and the statement of the importer's representative, but the record did not disclose any corroborative material showing that the appellant acted as a conduit for undervaluation or that he facilitated any extra payment or parallel invoicing. Once the foundation allegation of undervaluation itself failed, and the appellant's statement remained uncorroborated, the penalty could not survive against him.

Conclusion: The appellant's alleged role was not established, and the penalty could not be sustained, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The customs demand and penalty could not be upheld against the appellant because the alleged undervaluation was not supported by admissible and corroborated evidence, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs demand and penalty cannot be sustained on the basis of uncorroborated statements and inadmissible electronic printouts that do not satisfy the statutory requirements for admissibility of computer-derived evidence.

---