When evidence relating to Email should not be relied on?

 There is not a word in the department's appeal disputing the reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the Supreme Court's judgment. On this basis alone the appeal as liable to be dismissed. In any event, the evidence relied upon by the department is utterly insufficient to justify its case. The e-mail, as we have said, is sent by a person calling himself Agroment with the e-mail address @tm.net.my. The contention of he departmental representative that this person is a reputed manufacturer of furniture is totally without substantiation. When we asked on what basis he comes to this conclusion, he says, that the website indicates that to be so. If that was the case, what was the difficulty in communicating to the respondent the name of the supplier and that of the importer is beyond our understanding. The sender of the e-mail the reply to which was sent by Agreement is again unknown. The sender's name is blocked out in the copies supplied to the importer and in the copy in the department's file. The departmental representative's contention in this regard that this was done to safeguard the status of the sender, is absurd. If the identity of the sender of the e-mail has to be protected, that cannot be relied upon as evidence, so also when the address of the person sending the quotation is known that cannot be relied upon. The department, in effect, has chopped off significant portions of what is considered to be evidence and then asking the importers to rebut that evidence. This is contrary to the principles of evidence. The quotation in this case, sent by an unknown person to an unknown recipient, is totally unacceptable as evidence. We therefore find no ground for interference.

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai

Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai vs Ridhi Sidhi Furniture Fitting Co. on 12 October, 2001

Equivalent citations: 2002 (144) ELT 444 Tri Mumbai

JUDGMENT Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)

1. The respondent imported 456 typist arm chairs with gas lift seat mechanism and declared the value of these goods to be US$ 6.75 per chair. This price is supported by the invoice supplied by the manufacturer located in Malaysia who supplied the goods. The department issued notice to the importer proposing to enhance the value to US$ 27.90 per chair. The evidence in support of the proposal was as follows. An e-mail from a person described as Agroment quoted this to be the price of the goods supplied by it. The price list of chair sold by Arco Agency, whose address is stated to be located at Mumbai. An invoice of a Taiwanese company showing at US$ 11.70 per chair mechanism supported by a bill of entry of "chair mechanism." After considering the reply filed by the importer and hearing him, the Assistant Collector has enhanced the price to US$ 27.90 per chair, confiscated the goods for misdeclaration with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and imposed a penalty. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals), relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractor Ltd. v. CC 2000 (122) ELT 321 and noting that Rule 8(2) (1) prohibited determination of value on the basis of local price, allowed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the department.

2. There is not a word in the department's appeal disputing the reliance by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the Supreme Court's judgment. On this basis alone the appeal as liable to be dismissed. In any event, the evidence relied upon by the department is utterly insufficient to justify its case. The e-mail, as we have said, is sent by a person calling himself Agroment with the e-mail address @tm.net.my. The contention of he departmental representative that this person is a reputed manufacturer of furniture is totally without substantiation. When we asked on what basis he comes to this conclusion, he says, that the website indicates that to be so. If that was the case, what was the difficulty in communicating to the respondent the name of the supplier and that of the importer is beyond our understanding. The sender of the e-mail the reply to which was sent by Agreement is again unknown. The sender's name is blocked out in the copies supplied to the importer and in the copy in the department's file. The departmental representative's contention in this regard that this was done to safeguard the status of the sender, is absurd. If the identity of the sender of the e-mail has to be protected, that cannot be relied upon as evidence, so also when the address of the person sending the quotation is known that cannot be relied upon. The department, in effect, has chopped off significant portions of what is considered to be evidence and then asking the importers to rebut that evidence. This is contrary to the principles of evidence. The quotation in this case, sent by an unknown person to an unknown recipient, is totally unacceptable as evidence. We therefore find no ground for interference.

3. Appeal dismissed.

Print Page