Electronic records and customs valuation must be properly proved and tested against contemporaneous imports before duty demands survive.

Electronic invoices said to have been extracted from a mobile phone could not be relied on because the record did not establish proper recovery, authentication or compliance with the statutory requirements for electronic records, including a certificate for decrypted data. Customs duty reassessment based on those invoices also failed because the adjudication did not follow the prescribed valuation sequence after rejecting transaction value and did not displace the importer's contemporaneous import data with reasoned findings. On that evidentiary and valuation basis, the associated penalties, confiscation and redemption fine could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether invoices allegedly extracted from a mobile phone could be relied upon without compliance with the statutory requirements for electronic records; (ii) whether the differential customs duty, penalties, confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained on the basis of those invoices and without following the prescribed valuation sequence or considering contemporaneous imports.

Issue (i): whether invoices allegedly extracted from a mobile phone could be relied upon without compliance with the statutory requirements for electronic records.

Analysis: The invoices were said to have been recovered from a mobile phone, but the record did not establish such recovery with certainty. The report and the invoices did not tally in a manner that showed proper extraction from the device. The statutory requirements for admitting electronic records were not satisfied, and no adequate authentication or certificate for the decrypted data was shown to have been brought on record.

Conclusion: The invoices could not be relied upon as evidence.

Issue (ii): whether the differential customs duty, penalties, confiscation and redemption fine could be sustained on the basis of those invoices and without following the prescribed valuation sequence or considering contemporaneous imports.

Analysis: The demand was founded entirely on the disputed invoices, yet the adjudication expanded the demand beyond the four consignments to a much larger number of Bills of Entry without a proper comparison of goods. The prescribed valuation sequence was not followed after rejection of transaction value, and contemporaneous import data furnished by the importer was not displaced by any reasoned finding. In the absence of a reliable evidentiary basis and a lawful valuation exercise, the consequential penalties, confiscation and redemption fine also could not survive.

Conclusion: The demand, penalties, confiscation and redemption fine were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, with all consequential adverse findings under the impugned order set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Electronic records must be duly authenticated before reliance can be placed on them, and customs valuation cannot be reassessed on an unproven basis without following the prescribed valuation hierarchy and considering relevant contemporaneous imports.

---