https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99149 Electronic evidence from a mobile phone was rejected because the statutory requirements for admissibility under Section 138C were not shown to be met, and the retrieved note did not match the import documents in specification or quantity. Comparable import data was also found insufficient because similarity in grade, dimensions, width and commercial level was not established, so rejection of the declared transaction value failed and undervaluation was not proved. The Tribunal further held that suppression was not made out where the show cause case rested on documents already supplied at import, making the extended period unavailable and the penalties unsustainable. Classification was left open. en-us Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:42 +0530 Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99149 Electronic evidence from a mobile phone was rejected because the statutory requirements for admissibility under Section 138C were not shown to be met, and the retrieved note did not match the import documents in specification or quantity. Comparable import data was also found insufficient because similarity in grade, dimensions, width and commercial level was not established, so rejection of the declared transaction value failed and undervaluation was not proved. The Tribunal further held that suppression was not made out where the show cause case rested on documents already supplied at import, making the extended period unavailable and the penalties unsustainable. Classification was left open. Highlights Customs Sat, 25 Apr 2026 08:51:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99149