Customs Act, 1962 – ss.138C(4), 108 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65B – Compliance of s.138C(4) – Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence – Admissibility of electronic records – Case of the Revenue that the respondents (engaged in the business of importing branded food items) were declaring lower RSP/MRP of the imported goods, resulting in evasion of duties – Show cause notice issued – Confirmed by Adjudicating Authority, demand raised with interest and penalty – Penalty set aside by CESTAT (Tribunal) holding that the documents relied upon by the department for proceeding against the respondents were collected from their electronic devices and were not admissible in evidence in view of noncompliance of s.138C(4) – Challenge to: Held: There was due compliance of s.138C(4) in the present case – Record of Proceedings were duly signed by the respondents, including the various statements of the respondents recorded u/s.108 – Due compliance does not mean that a particular certificate stricto senso in accordance with s.138C(4) must necessarily be on record – The various documents on record in the form of record of proceedings and the statements recorded u/s.108 could be said to be due compliance of s.138C(4) – A certificate not given in the prescribed format per se will not make it invalid, especially when the authenticity of the marked documents is not in dispute – At no point of time the statements recorded u/s.108 were retracted – Even while giving reply to the show cause notice, the contents of such statements recorded u/s.108 were not disputed – However, this would be relevant only for determining whether there has been due compliance of s.138C(4) – The evidentiary value of such s.108 statements in any other proceedings, if any would have to be considered in accordance with law, including the compliance of s.138B – Order passed by Tribunal set aside – Appeals filed by the assessees before the Tribunal restored – Impotentia excusat legem – Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. [Paras 43-46, 48]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.