2026 (1) TMI 1097 - AT - Customs

Customs valuation and admissibility of statements: electronic records and retracted statements cannot sustain re-determination of transaction value.

Relevance and admissibility of statements recorded under statutory interrogation, admissibility of electronic records and computer printouts, and ... Relevancy and admissibility of statements recorded u/s 108 - Admissibility of computer printouts and electronic records - Rejection and re-determination of transaction value under Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Requirement of certificate u/s 138C(4) - Retracted statements and evidentiary effect - Adjudicating authority's obligation to examine witness and permit cross-examination - Mandatory procedural safeguards in adjudication proceedings - applicability of section 138B and section 138C - HELD THAT:- In Shri T.N. Malhotra, Managing Director vs Pr. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2024 (6) TMI 202 - CESTAT NEW. In this decision, the Bench examined the provisions of section 108 of the Customs Act, but it appears that the provisions of section 138B of the Customs Act were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. As a result, the Bench examined whether the statements made were voluntary or under pressure. It is for this reason that the Bench relied upon the statements. Thus, it has to be held that the statements of persons recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could not have been relied upon by the Principal Commissioner for rejecting the transaction value and re-determining the same. There is nothing on the record to show that Panchnama was drawn regarding the printouts of the email. The statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act were also retracted by the appellants. Thus, compliance of section 138C of the Customs Act had not been satisfied. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the order dated December 15, 2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner that rejects the declared value of the goods under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules and re-determines it under rule 3. Nor is it possible to sustain the imposition of penalties upon the appellants. The impugned order dated December 15, 2023, insofar as it concerns these three appeals, is set aside and all the three appeals are allowed. Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon by the adjudicating authority without following the procedure mandated by section 138B(1)(b) for their admission in adjudication proceedings; (ii) Whether computer printouts and email printouts relied upon by the adjudicating authority were admissible under section 138C of the Customs Act without compliance with the certificate/other requirements prescribed by that section.Issue (i): Whether the adjudicating authority could rely on statements recorded under section 108 for rejecting declared transaction value and imposing penalties without first examining the persons who made those statements and forming an opinion under section 138B(1)(b).Analysis: Section 138B(1)(b) makes statements recorded under section 108 relevant in adjudication only after the person who made the statement is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority forms an opinion, having regard to the circumstances, that the statement should be admitted in evidence; thereafter the affected party must be given opportunity for cross-examination. Precedents applying the parallel provision in the Central Excise Act and decisions of High Courts and the Tribunal confirm that the procedure is mandatory and failure to follow it renders such statements not relevant and inadmissible in adjudication.Conclusion: Statements recorded under section 108 cannot be relied upon by the adjudicating authority for rejecting declared value or for imposing penalties unless the mandatory procedure in section 138B(1)(b) is followed; in the present cases those statements could not be relied upon.Issue (ii): Whether printouts of emails and computer-generated documents relied upon by the adjudicating authority were admissible under section 138C in the absence of compliance with the certificate and other conditions prescribed by that section.Analysis: Section 138C provides conditions for admissibility of computer printouts and requires satisfaction of subsection (2) and the matters dealt with in subsection (4), including an appropriate certificate as evidence of matters stated in it. The impugned order contains no finding or record showing compliance with the certification/conditions of section 138C and the Panchnama for email printouts is absent; further, the relied-upon statements were retracted, adversely affecting reliance in the absence of proper section 138C compliance.Conclusion: The email printouts and computer-generated documents were not shown to be admissible under section 138C and could not validly support rejection of declared value or penalty imposition in these appeals.Final Conclusion: For the reasons above, the impugned order rejecting declared transaction value under rule 12 and re-determining value under rule 3, and the consequential penalties imposed, cannot be sustained; the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside insofar as these appeals are concerned.Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded under section 108 are inadmissible in adjudication proceedings unless the person is examined before the adjudicating authority and the authority records an opinion under section 138B(1)(b) permitting admission and, separately, computer printouts/email reproductions are admissible only upon satisfaction of the conditions and certification required by section 138C.