Commissioner of Customs Vs Junaid Kudia Etc. (Supreme Court of India)
The matter arose from an Order-in-Original dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai, concerning imports made through Bombay Port and Nhava Sheva Port by M/s Plastic Cottage Trading Company. The adjudicating authority rejected the declared assessable value of the imported consignments, re-determined the assessable value, confirmed differential customs duty with interest, appropriated the amount deposited by the importer, and imposed penalties on the importer and its partners, Shri Junaid Kudia and Shri Zaid Kudia, under Sections 112(a), 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The case was initiated on the basis of DRI investigations alleging undervaluation of imported goods. During searches conducted at the importer’s premises and at M/s Winsor Enterprises, printouts of emails and invoices were recovered. The Department relied on these electronic records and statements of the partners to allege that the actual value of imported goods was higher than the value declared before Customs.
Before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the appellants contended that the statements relied upon by the Department had been recorded under pressure and were subsequently retracted. They also submitted that the Department’s case rested entirely on electronic records recovered from the email account of an employee of their sister concern, whose statement had not been recorded and whose cross-examination was denied. It was further argued that the electronic documents were inadmissible because the mandatory requirements of Section 138C of the Customs Act had not been complied with. The appellants also contended that there was no evidence of payment of any amount over and above the declared invoice value and that the Bills of Entry had already attained finality after assessment. The Revenue defended the adjudication by relying upon the recovered emails, the statements of the partners and decisions supporting the evidentiary value of such statements, while also submitting that cross-examination could not be granted as the concerned person did not appear despite summons.
