S.N. Agrotech Vs C.C. (CESTAT Delhi)
The case concerns the import of food items by three companies, including S.N. Agrotech, through various ports such as ICD Tughlakabad, Nhava Sheva, Mundra, and the Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received intelligence alleging that these importers were undervaluing their imported goods. On 16 June 2015, DRI officers conducted searches at business premises and residences of the Directors, seizing laptops, iPads, iPhones, printers used for affixing MRP labels, and other items. Statements of the Directors were recorded, and electronic devices were subjected to forensic analysis.
A Show Cause Notice dated 6 June 2016 proposed the demand of customs duty with interest, enhancement of assessable value under Rule 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules read with Section 14 of the Customs Act, confiscation of seized goods, redemption fines, and imposition of penalties. The Additional Director General (Adj.), DRI, New Delhi, acting as the common adjudicating authority, confirmed the duty demand, interest, enhanced valuation, confiscation, and penalties. The appellants challenged the order before the Tribunal.
The appellants argued primarily that the electronic evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority was inadmissible due to the absence of the mandatory certificate required under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. They referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Tribunal rulings supporting the need for strict compliance with statutory requirements for electronic evidence. They also contended that differential duty prior to 31 December 2012 could not be demanded due to earlier proceedings, asserted that the assessment was based on RSP, and argued that witnesses were not examined in accordance with Section 138B of the Act.
