TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Due Compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for Admissibility of Electronic Records (Computer Printouts) in Customs Proceedings
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment was inadmissible due to alleged non-compliance with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The core controversy concerned what constitutes due compliance with the certificate requirement under Section 138C(4) when computer printouts and electronic records are sought to be tendered in evidence in proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court held that, on the facts, there was due compliance in substance, and therefore the tribunals approach was erroneous. The matter was remanded to the tribunal for decision on grounds other than Section 138C(4). Material Facts The respondents (referred to as the importers/assessees) were engaged in importing branded food items and selling them in the domestic market. The department carri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tures of persons associated with the assessees, and statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 acknowledging the printouts and their authenticity/presence during printing. It was also material that such statements were not retracted and were not disputed in the reply to the show cause notice, to the extent relevant for the Section 138C(4) compliance issue. Issue Involved Whether the appellate tribunal erred in holding that the department failed to comply with Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for admitting and relying upon computer printouts/electronic records, and whether, on the facts, the available record of proceedings and Section 108 statements could amount to due compliance with Section 138C(4) even in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be a document admissible in proceedings if Section 65B conditions are satisfied. The Court treated Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act as pari materia to Section 138C(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore drew interpretive support from the approach to Section 65B(4) as discussed by the Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Others (citations not stated here for compliance reasons). 3. Mandatory character and the impossibility maxims While recognising that the certificate requirement is mandatory in principle, the Court referred to the established maxims impotentia excusat legem and lex non cogit ad impossibilia to explain that the law does not compel the impossible. The Court noted that the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the evidentiary value of Section 108 statements in any other proceedings would have to be considered in accordance with law, including compliance with Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962. The remand direction preserved the tribunals role to consider other grounds (including those not examined earlier) on their own merits. 7. Certificate format not determinative where authenticity is not in dispute The Court also relied on the proposition that a certificate not given in a prescribed format would not per se make it invalid, particularly when authenticity of the marked documents is not in dispute. This observation supported the conclusion that the tribunal was not justified in rejecting the electronic material solely on a rigid view....