Admissibility of investigative statements determines evidentiary use; failure of required procedural safeguards invalidates valuation reassessment and penalties.

Admissibility of investigative statements: statements recorded under Section 108 were inadmissible because the statutory safeguards in Section 138B were not followed; contemporaneous medical evidence of coercion and a retraction further undermined reliance, and the adjudicator could not admit them. Customs valuation: rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determination under Rule 9 based on investigative statements, post-importation e mails and unsigned price lists lacked probative value and authenticity, so the reassessment failed. Beneficial ownership and penalties: findings treating the appellant as beneficial owner and imposing penalties/confiscation collapsed once inadmissible and unreliable evidence was excluded, and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be admitted and relied upon by the adjudicating authority without following the procedure mandated by Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value in the Bills of Entry could be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules on the evidence relied upon by the Department; (iii) Whether the appellant could be treated as the beneficial owner under Section 2(3A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether penalties and confiscation-related consequences could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were admissible and could be relied upon without compliance with Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The decision analyses statutory requirements governing admissibility of statements recorded during investigation and applies binding authorities holding that when circumstances in clause (a) are not present the procedural safeguards in clause (b) of the relevant provision must be followed before such statements acquire evidentiary relevance. The Tribunal examined the appellant's account of coercion, contemporaneous medical reports corroborating physical assault, the appellant's retraction filed before the magistrate, and authorities construing analogous provisions (section 9D of the Central Excise Act and section 138B of the Customs Act) to conclude that statements recorded during investigation cannot be treated as relevant evidence unless the person is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority forms an opinion admitting the statement in evidence.

Conclusion: Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were not admissible for the purposes of the adjudication because the mandatory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 was not complied with; reliance upon those statements is rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 and re-determined under Rule 9 of the said Rules on the basis of the e-mails, purported parallel invoices and price list relied upon by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the grounds relied upon by the Commissioner for rejection - primarily the investigative statements and e-mails/attachments said to have been received on the appellant's email on 04.09.2021 - and found that the investigative statements could not be relied upon. The Tribunal further considered the appellant's pleaded explanation that the e-mails and attachments were created or placed into his inbox while he was in custody and the investigating officers had access to his devices and network; the Commissioner did not investigate or address this contention. The Tribunal also found the purported price list to lack indicia of authenticity (not on supplier letterhead, unsigned) and held that e-mails received after importation could not be treated as reliable contemporaneous evidence to reject the declared transaction value under Rule 12. Given the primary evidentiary sources for redetermination were thus unsustainable, the rejection under Rule 12 and consequent re-determination under Rule 9 could not stand.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be validly rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and the re-determination under Rule 9 of the said Rules on the impugned material is unsustainable; the demand based on such re-determination is set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant could be treated as the beneficial owner under Section 2(3A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether penalties and confiscation-related consequences imposed on the appellant and co-appellants could be sustained.

Analysis: The finding of beneficial ownership and resulting penalties/confiscation were founded on the statements and evidence already held inadmissible or unreliable by the Tribunal. With the exclusion of those statements and the rejection of the evidentiary basis for re-determination, the statutory conclusions treating the appellant as beneficial owner and imposing penalties and confiscation-related consequences cannot be maintained.

Conclusion: The finding that the appellant was the beneficial owner under Section 2(3A) of the Customs Act, 1962 is set aside; penalties and confiscation-related consequences imposed on the appellant and the co-appellants are quashed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order dated 11.06.2024 is set aside in full; the customs appeals are allowed, the demand of differential duty with interest, penalties and confiscation-related measures are annulled insofar as they rest on inadmissible or unreliable evidence, and the appeals of the appellant and co-appellants succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statements recorded during investigation under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not shown to fall within the exceptions in clause (a), they acquire relevance for adjudication only after the statutory procedure under Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962 is complied with (examination of the person as a witness before the adjudicating authority and recorded opinion admitting the statement); absent such compliance and where contemporaneous evidence of coercion or doubts about provenance of electronic materials exist, rejection of declared transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determination under Rule 9 based on such material is unsustainable.

---