Composite Impex Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that rejection of transaction value under rule 12 of Valuation Rules based on printout taken from pen drive is not tenable as evidence (i.e. printout taken from pen drive) is not supported with statutory compliance of producing mandatory certificate under section 138C of the Customs Act.
Facts- The appellant imported Automotive Windshield (Automotive Safety Glass) of assorted sizes for various models by classifying them under Customs Tariff Item 7007 21 90 during the period 2015-18. An investigation was carried out by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch and a show cause notice dated 21.08.2020 was issued to the appellant alleging suppression of the actual transaction value and resorting to under-valuation relying upon the Excel Sheet printout taken from a pen drive of the data retrieved from ‘WeChat’ said to have been sent by one person named as Max of M/s. Dongguan Benson Automobile Glass Co. Ltd., China to Rajiv Dhuper, partner of the appellant. The appellant did not find favour of the Principal Commissioner and the demand of differential duty with penalties was confirmed.
Conclusion- Held that a printout generated from a secondary electronic evidence that has been seized, cannot be admitted in evidence unless the statutory conditions laid down in section 36B of the Central Excise Act are complied with. The decisions also hold that if the data is not stored in the computer but officers take out a printout from the hard disk drive by connecting it to the computer, then a certificate under section 36B of the Central Excise Act is mandatory. In the present case, the printout was taken from a secondary evidence namely the pen drive. It could not have been considered as evidence in the absence of a certificate under section 138C of the Customs Act.
