Customs valuation and extended limitation fail where electronic extracts are unreliable and comparable imports are materially dissimilar.

Declared transaction value was accepted where the alleged undervaluation was supported only by a mobile-phone note and contemporaneous import data that were not shown to be reliable or sufficiently comparable. The note was treated as inadmissible or untrustworthy because its contents did not match the consignments and the requirements for electronic records were not established, while the cited imports differed materially in grade, thickness, width, and commercial characteristics. The extended limitation period was also unavailable because the notice relied on documents already furnished at import and did not establish suppression, collusion, or wilful misdeclaration. Consequential confiscation, duty, interest, and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand founded on alleged undervaluation was sustainable on the basis of the mobile-phone note and contemporaneous import data; and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether the demand founded on alleged undervaluation was sustainable on the basis of the mobile-phone note and contemporaneous import data.

Analysis: The valuation dispute turned on whether the declared transaction value could be rejected on the strength of the note recovered from the mobile phone and the stated comparable imports. The note was not treated as reliable evidence because its contents did not match the specifications and quantities of the impugned consignments, and the statutory requirements governing admissibility of electronic records were not shown to have been satisfied. The alleged comparable imports were also found not to be sufficiently similar in terms of grade, thickness, width, and commercial characteristics so as to form a valid basis for rejection of the declared value under the valuation rules.

Conclusion: The allegation of undervaluation was not sustained and the declared transaction value was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked.

Analysis: The notice was founded on material already furnished by the importers at the time of import, and the case did not establish suppression, collusion, or other ingredients necessary to attract the extended limitation period. As the notice itself rested on the import documents and mill test certificates supplied by the importers, the foundation for alleging deliberate concealment was not made out.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on valuation and limitation, with consequential relief granted, and the confiscation, duty, interest, and penalty consequences founded on the impugned demand could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for differential customs duty cannot be sustained on unverified electronic extracts or dissimilar import data, and the extended period of limitation is unavailable where the notice is based on disclosures already made by the importer without proof of suppression or wilful misdeclaration.

---