2025 (5) TMI 1288 - AT - Customs

Denial of transaction value of the goods - confiscation - payment of redemption fine - Admissibility of the computer printouts in the absence of any certificate issued under section 138C of the Customs Act - imports iron screws/ self-drilling screws from China - issuance of SCN - e-mail correspondence between another supplier and other receiver of goods - statement made under section 108 - HELD THAT - Regarding the printout of the e-mails it needs to be noted that the two panchnamas recorded on 29.03.2017 do not refer to any printout of the e-mails having been taken. In fact the only reference to the printouts of the e-mails having been taken is contained in the statement of Mahesh Sabharwal recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act on 14.09.2017. The said statement does not indicate from which electronic device the printout was taken. It was absolutely necessary for the department to have taken the printouts during the process of recording of the panchnama or in the presence of witnesses. It appears that the printouts were taken on 14.09.2017 as is clear from the statement of Mahesh Sabharwal recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. This apart the printouts of the emails contain quotations of different suppliers and not to the supplier of the appellant and they are not the final prices. The printouts also relate to another importer of M/s Sagar Impex and it is stated that Khusagar Aggarwal of Sagar Impex had admitted the prices in his statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act. It was necessary for the department to have not only substantiated that screws that were imported by M/s Sagar Impex and that by the appellant were of the same quality and were made at about the same time but to have also examined Khusagar Aggarwal in the present proceedings for his statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act in some other proceedings could not have been relied upon in the present proceedings. If the emails and the statement of Mahesh Sabharwal are discarded then there is absolutely no evidence for rejection of the transaction value declared by the appellant. Thus the impugned order rejecting the transaction value under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules cannot be sustained. The re-determination of the transaction value therefore would not arise. Such being the position the order for payment of redemption fine and for imposition of penalty upon the appellant and Mahesh Sabharwal cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner is accordingly set aside and both the appeals are allowed.

Summary

Issues Presented and Considered

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

(i) Whether the transaction value declared by the appellant for imported screws could be rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 ("2007 Valuation Rules") on the basis of alleged undervaluation and misdeclaration.

(ii) Whether the re-determination of the value of imported goods under Rule 5 of the 2007 Valuation Rules was justified.

(iii) The admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic evidence, specifically computer printouts of emails and invoices retrieved from the email accounts of the appellant and a third party importer, in the absence of a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962 ("Customs Act").

(iv) The applicability and procedural requirements relating to the use of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, including whether cross-examination of the declarant (a third party) was necessary before relying on such statements.

(v) Whether the penalty and redemption fine imposed on the appellant and its director were sustainable in the facts and circumstances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Rejection of Transaction Value under Rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules

The legal framework governing customs valuation is primarily the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Rule 12 allows rejection of the declared transaction value if it is found to be incorrect or unreliable. The department relied on evidence including email printouts of supplier quotations and invoices retrieved from the appellant's and another importer's email accounts, along with statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, to allege undervaluation.

The department's case was that the appellant declared a flat rate of approximately $0.7 per kg for various types of screws, whereas contemporaneous invoices from a similar importer (M/s Sagar Impex) showed prices ranging between $1000 to $2000 per ton, indicating undervaluation. The appellant was unable to produce evidence to demonstrate that the goods imported by it differed in quality or composition from those imported by M/s Sagar Impex. Further, the appellant failed to produce purchase orders or contracts specifying the goods' quality or composition, and was found to have submitted forged or fabricated invoices.

The Principal Commissioner held that these factors justified rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 and re-determination under Rule 5, relying on the contemporaneous values of similar goods imported by a third party. The department also held that the appellant and its director were liable for penalty under Sections 112(ii), 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act for undervaluation and misdeclaration.

The appellant contended that the invoices and emails related to a different importer and supplier, and hence could not be relied upon to reject the declared transaction value. It argued that the statements of the third party importer were inadmissible in the present proceedings and that the electronic evidence was not admissible in the absence of a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act.

2. Admissibility of Statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act and Cross-examination

The department relied on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the appellant's director and the third party importer. The appellant sought cross-examination of the third party importer, which was rejected by the Principal Commissioner on the ground that the statement was voluntary, recorded through due legal process, and is deemed a judicial proceeding under Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Principal Commissioner held that cross-examination was not warranted once the charges stood proved, and the statement had evidentiary value.

3. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence without Certificate under Section 138C

The appellant challenged the admissibility of computer printouts of emails and invoices retrieved from email accounts, arguing the absence of a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, which prescribes conditions for the admissibility of electronic records.

The Principal Commissioner rejected this argument, observing that the printouts were taken in the presence of the appellant and the third party importer during their statements under Section 108. Neither party disowned the documents or challenged the authenticity of the devices from which the printouts were taken. Therefore, the authenticity and genuineness of the electronic evidence were not in doubt, and the provisions of Section 138C were held not applicable in the facts of this case.

4. Burden of Proof and Evaluation of Evidence

The appellant argued that the department failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish undervaluation. The department contended that the initial burden was discharged by producing contemporaneous quotations, invoices, and statements, shifting the onus to the appellant to rebut the allegations.

The Principal Commissioner accepted the department's position, finding that the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the discrepancies in declared values, failed to produce relevant documents such as purchase orders or specifications, and gave evasive replies. These factors cumulatively justified rejection of the declared transaction value.

5. Re-determination of Transaction Value under Rule 5

Since the declared transaction value was rejected, the department re-determined the value under Rule 5 of the 2007 Valuation Rules, which allows valuation based on the value of identical or similar goods imported from other sources. The department relied on the value of goods imported by M/s Sagar Impex, adjusted for contemporaneity and similarity, to fix the assessable value of the appellant's imports.

6. Penalty and Redemption Fine

Based on findings of undervaluation and misdeclaration, the department imposed penalty and redemption fine on the appellant and its director under relevant provisions of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the imposition of penalty and fine, arguing that the foundational findings were unsustainable.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Appellate Tribunal undertook a detailed examination of the procedural and substantive aspects of the case. It noted that the panchnama recorded at the time of search did not mention taking printouts of emails, and the only record of such printouts was in the statement of the appellant's director under Section 108, taken on a later date. The Tribunal emphasized that such printouts should have been taken during the search or in the presence of witnesses to establish their authenticity beyond doubt.

The Tribunal referred to a Division Bench decision which clarified that statements recorded under Section 108 are relevant evidence only if the declarant is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and an opinion is formed that such statements should be admitted in the interest of justice. The declarant must be afforded an opportunity for cross-examination. Failure to comply with this procedure renders such statements inadmissible.

In the present case, the third party importer whose statements and emails were relied upon was not examined in the appellant's proceedings, and no opportunity for cross-examination was afforded. Therefore, reliance on such statements was not permissible.

Further, the Tribunal observed that the printouts of emails pertained to quotations from suppliers different from those of the appellant and were not final prices. The appellant had denied that the goods imported by it were identical in quality or composition to those imported by the third party. The department did not produce evidence to establish similarity or contemporaneity conclusively.

Discarding the electronic evidence and statements relied upon by the department, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence to reject the declared transaction value. Accordingly, the rejection under Rule 12 and re-determination under Rule 5 could not be sustained.

Consequently, the penalty and redemption fine imposed on the appellant and its director also could not be upheld.

Significant Holdings

"The statements recorded during inquiry/investigation by officers has every chance of being recorded under coercion or compulsion and it is in order to neutralize this possibility that statements of the witnesses have to be recorded before the adjudicating authority, after which such statements can be admitted in evidence."

"Both section 9D(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act and section 138B(1)(b) of the Customs Act contemplate that when the provisions of clause (a) of these two sections are not applicable, then the statements made under section 14 of the Central Excise Act or under section 108 of the Customs Act during the course of an inquiry under the Acts shall be relevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts contained in them only when such persons are examined as witnesses before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority forms an opinion that the statements should be admitted in evidence. It is thereafter that an opportunity has to be provided for cross-examination of such persons."

"The printouts of the emails contain quotations of different suppliers and not to the supplier of the appellant and they are not the final prices. The printouts also relate to another importer of M/s Sagar Impex and it is stated that Khusagar Aggarwal of Sagar Impex had admitted the prices in his statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act. It was necessary for the department to have not only substantiated that screws that were imported by M/s Sagar Impex and that by the appellant were of the same quality and were made at about the same time but to have also examined Khusagar Aggarwal in the present proceedings for his statement made under section 108 of the Customs Act in some other proceedings could not have been relied upon in the present proceedings."

"If the emails and the statement of Mahesh Sabharwal are discarded, then there is absolutely no evidence for rejection of the transaction value declared by the appellant."

"The impugned order rejecting the transaction value under rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules cannot be sustained. The re-determination of the transaction value, therefore, would not arise."

Core Principles Established

(i) Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act during inquiry have evidentiary value only if the declarant is examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and an opportunity for cross-examination is provided, failing which such statements cannot be relied upon.

(ii) Electronic evidence such as computer printouts of emails must be taken in the presence of witnesses during search or inquiry to establish authenticity; mere reliance on printouts taken later without proper panchnama or certification under Section 138C is insufficient.

(iii) Reliance on statements or documents pertaining to third party importers in separate proceedings is impermissible unless the third party is examined and the evidence is properly linked and substantiated in the present proceedings.

(iv) The burden of proof initially lies on the department to establish undervaluation, but once a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to the importer to rebut the allegations with cogent evidence.

(v) Rejection of declared transaction value and re-determination under the Customs Valuation Rules require robust and admissible evidence demonstrating undervaluation or misdeclaration.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

(i) The rejection of the transaction value declared by the appellant under Rule 12 of the 2007 Valuation Rules was not sustainable due to lack of admissible and reliable evidence.

(ii) The re-determination of the transaction value under Rule 5 of the 2007 Valuation Rules did not arise once the declared value was upheld.

(iii) The electronic evidence and statements of third parties relied upon by the department were inadmissible and could not be used to prove undervaluation.

(iv) The appellant was entitled to have the third party declarant examined and cross-examined, which was not permitted, rendering reliance on such statements improper.

(v) The penalty and redemption fine imposed on the appellant and its director were set aside as the foundational findings of undervaluation were not supported by admissible evidence.