Electronic evidence in customs cases needs statutory certification; unverified origin certificates and unsupported valuation cannot sustain demand.

Electronic records used in customs adjudication must satisfy the mandatory statutory certificate requirement; printouts and WhatsApp chats taken from devices are inadmissible without it, and uncorroborated statements cannot cure that defect. Country of origin certificates cannot be rejected unless shown to be fake or otherwise legally invalid through proper verification, and alleged foreign origin cannot rest only on inadmissible electronic material and unsupported statements. Re-determination of value also requires reliable contemporaneous evidence of under-valuation or extra consideration; proforma invoices alone are insufficient. On this analysis, the demand, valuation enhancement, rejection of origin certificates, and penalties are unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the printouts and WhatsApp chats taken from electronic devices were admissible in evidence in the absence of the statutory certificate; (ii) Whether the rejection of country of origin certificates and the re-determination of value and duty demand were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the printouts and WhatsApp chats taken from electronic devices were admissible in evidence in the absence of the statutory certificate.

Analysis: The electronic records relied upon by the Revenue were taken from a hard disk and mobile devices, but the statutory requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence were not satisfied. Mere seizure, panchnama, or subsequent reference to the printouts did not substitute the mandatory certificate contemplated by the governing provision. The statements of the director and the third-party statement were also not supported by independent corroboration and could not, by themselves, prove the allegations when the electronic material itself was inadmissible.

Conclusion: The electronic printouts and chats were held to be inadmissible, and the Revenue could not rely on them to sustain the demand.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of country of origin certificates and the re-determination of value and duty demand were sustainable.

Analysis: The country of origin certificates were not shown to be fake or invalid through any verification from the issuing authorities, and no legally sufficient basis was established to disregard them. The alleged Chinese origin was inferred mainly from inadmissible electronic material and uncorroborated statements. The enhancement of value was also unsupported, as no contemporaneous import data or evidence of extra consideration was produced, and the re-determination was based on proforma invoices rather than legally reliable valuation material. Penalty could not survive once the demand itself failed.

Conclusion: The rejection of origin certificates, the re-determination of value, the duty demand, and the penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, with the impugned order set aside and consequential relief granted according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Electronic records used in customs adjudication must satisfy the mandatory statutory certificate requirement, and unsupported statements or unverified material cannot override valid country of origin certificates or justify enhancement of value without reliable corroboration.

---