Excel Sheet Retrieved from Pen Drive Without Certificate u/s 138C of Customs is Inadmissible Evidence: CESTAT [Read Order]

The New Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that an Excel sheet retrieved from a pen drive and printed without a certificate under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962, is inadmissible as evidence in customs proceedings.

Composite Impex, an importer of automotive safety glass from China, and its partner Rajiv Dhuper, challenged an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD-Tughlakabad, New Delhi, which had confirmed demands for differential customs duty, interest, and penalties based on alleged under-valuation of imported goods.

Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here

The customs department alleged that the importer had declared lower values in the Bills of Entry while higher payments were made to the supplier, as purportedly evidenced by an Excel sheet obtained from Rajiv Dhuper’s pen drive during the investigation. The Excel sheet, which listed CIF values, invoice numbers, and payment details, was allegedly received from the overseas supplier through the WeChat messaging platform.

Read More: Relief for Hindustan Zinc Ltd: CESTAT Rules Structural Steel Used for Chimney Support Qualifies as Capital Goods, Eligible for Credit [Read Order]

The department also relied on the statement of Rajiv Dhuper recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, wherein he initially admitted the accuracy of the Excel data and agreed to the proposed duty demand. The statement was later retracted by the appellant, who claimed it was obtained under coercion. The supplier also denied the authenticity of the Excel sheet.

Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here

The appellants' counsel argued that the Excel sheet was inadmissible as it was a printout of electronic data retrieved from a pen drive, lacking the certification required under Section 138C of the Customs Act. They argued that in the absence of the mandatory certificate, the document could not be treated as valid evidence. They further submitted that Rajiv Dhuper’s statement could not be relied upon as it was retracted, and the officer who recorded the statement was not subjected to cross-examination as required under Section 138B of the Customs Act.

Read More: CBIC updates Customs Tariff Rates of Gold, Silver and Oil [Read Notification]

The two-member bench comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), observed that under Section 138C of the Customs Act, any electronic record must be accompanied by a valid certificate to be admissible as evidence. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, which mandate strict compliance with the evidentiary rules for electronic documents.

Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts, Click Here

The tribunal held that the Excel sheet was inadmissible in the absence of the certificate required under Section 138C. The tribunal also held that the retracted statement of Rajiv Dhuper could not be relied upon as it was not corroborated and was recorded in violation of the safeguards under Section 138B of the Customs Act.

The tribunal set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs and allowed the appeals filed by Composite Impex and Rajiv Dhuper. The demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties was quashed.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

M/s. Composite Impex vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) , 2025 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 522 , Customs Appeal No. 50955 of 2021 , 15 May 2025 , Shri Alok Agarwal, Shri Sharad Srivastava, Shri Prachit Mahajan , Shri Nagendra Yadav