Admissibility of customs statements and electronic records undermined; valuation rejection and penalties set aside on evidentiary noncompliance

Applicability of statutory safeguards for admissibility of investigation statements and electronic records was examined, with the consequence that statements recorded under the investigation provision could not be relied upon where mandatory formalities for admitting electronic records and certificates were not complied with, and where recorded statements were retracted; therefore the administrative rejection and re-determination of transaction value under the valuation rules premised on those statements and electronic printouts was unsustainable, and penalties imposed on that basis were invalidated, resulting in setting aside of the impugned valuation and penalty orders and allowance of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act could be relied upon in adjudication proceedings without following the procedure mandated by section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act; (ii) Whether electronic records/printouts and statements relied upon satisfied the requirements of section 138C(4) of the Customs Act so as to be admissible.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act were admissible and could be relied upon for rejecting declared value and re-determining value without first examining the maker as witness before the adjudicating authority and forming an opinion under section 138B(1)(b).

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires that statements recorded before Gazetted Officers under section 108 acquire relevance in adjudication only if the person who made the statement is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority forms an opinion that the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. Authorities applying analogous provisions have held the procedure to be mandatory and that failure to follow it renders such statements irrelevant and inadmissible for adjudicatory findings; cross-examination is available only after the statement is admitted in evidence by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order relied on section 108 statements which were retracted and where the mandated procedure under section 138B(1)(b) was not followed.

Conclusion: Statements recorded under section 108 could not be relied upon in the absence of compliance with the procedure in section 138B(1)(b); reliance on such statements is not permissible and is against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the electronic records/printouts and other documentary material relied upon satisfied the certification and other requirements under section 138C so as to be admissible in evidence.

Analysis: Section 138C prescribes conditions for admissibility of computer printouts and permits admission upon compliance with subsection (2) and production of a certificate under subsection (4) or equivalent compliance. The record in this matter did not show compliance with the requirements of section 138C(4) (no certificate or panchnama for printouts) and statements under section 108 relied upon were retracted; therefore the statutory prerequisites for admission under section 138C were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The requirements of section 138C were not complied with; the electronic printouts and related material could not be treated as admissible evidence for re-determination of value.

Final Conclusion: Non-compliance with the mandatory evidentiary procedures in sections 138B and 138C undermined the basis for rejecting declared transaction value and for imposing penalties; accordingly the impugned adjudication cannot be sustained and is set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Statements recorded under section 108 are admissible in adjudication only after the maker is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the authority records an opinion under section 138B(1)(b) admitting the statement in the interests of justice; electronic records/printouts require compliance with section 138C(2) and evidentiary certification under section 138C(4) before they can be treated as admissible evidence.

---