Additional Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Suresh Kumar and Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025
The judgment distinguishes customs proceedings from general civil/criminal proceedings where stricter compliance with the Evidence Act might apply.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
2 September 2025
Judges
Justice JB Pardiwala & Justice KV Viswanathan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The DRI accused the respondent company of under-declaring MRP of imported branded food items, leading to a customs duty evasion exceeding ₹9 crore.
-
Electronic evidence was recovered during a search—specifically from laptops and hard drives.
-
The seized data was printed and authenticated by the respondent’s directors, who signed each page.
-
The Adjudicating Authority upheld the DRI’s findings based on the evidence.
-
However, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) quashed the order, stating the electronic evidence was inadmissible due to absence of a certificate under Section 138C(4).
-
CESTAT relied on the precedent in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer to support its ruling.
Issues
-
Whether electronic evidence seized without a certificate under Section 138C(4) is admissible?
-
Whether signed statements and acknowledgements under Section 108 constitute sufficient compliance?
-
Whether substantial compliance can override the formal requirement of a certificate?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court reversed the CESTAT decision.
-
It was Held that strict compliance with Section 138C(4) is not mandatory where the assessees acknowledge the documents in their Section 108 statements.
-
It was cited Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) to hold that substantial compliance and undisputed authenticity are sufficient.
-
The Court noted that the respondents did not challenge the authenticity of the records in their replies to the show cause notice.
Held
-
Absence of a Section 138C(4) certificate will not make the electronic evidence inadmissible if:
-
The assessee has acknowledged the documents during the proceedings, and
-
There is no dispute over the authenticity.
-
-
Statements and signatures under Section 108, along with signed printouts, amount to due compliance.
Analysis
-
The Court prioritized practicality over procedural rigidity, acknowledging enforcement realities.
-
The judgment distinguishes customs proceedings from general civil/criminal proceedings where stricter compliance with the Evidence Act might apply.
-
It emphasizes that evidence shouldn't be excluded solely due to technical non-compliance if authenticity is admitted.
-
Reinforces the idea of substantial procedural compliance in fiscal/statutory investigations.
-
This case narrows the strict interpretation laid down in Anvar P.V. by applying contextual and purposive reasoning.